410 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15821691)
1. Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini-block appliances: Part 1. Hard tissue changes.
Gill DS; Lee RT
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Apr; 127(4):465-72; quiz 517. PubMed ID: 15821691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini-block appliances: Part 2. Soft tissue changes.
Sharma AA; Lee RT
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Apr; 127(4):473-82. PubMed ID: 15821692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. An evaluation of maxillary and mandibular rotational responses with the Clark twin block appliance.
Lau EY; Sampson WJ; Townsend GC; Hughes T
Aust Orthod J; 2009 May; 25(1):48-58. PubMed ID: 19634464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.
Thiruvenkatachari B; Sandler J; Murray A; Walsh T; O'Brien K
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Aug; 138(2):144.e1-9; discussion 144-5. PubMed ID: 20691354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Short-term skeletal and dental effects of the Xbow appliance as measured on lateral cephalograms.
Flores-Mir C; Barnett G; Higgins DW; Heo G; Major PW
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Dec; 136(6):822-32. PubMed ID: 19962605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Stability of Class II treatment with an edgewise crowned Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition: Skeletal and dental changes.
Wigal TG; Dischinger T; Martin C; Razmus T; Gunel E; Ngan P
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Aug; 140(2):210-23. PubMed ID: 21803259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of 2 modifications of the twin-block appliance in matched Class II samples.
Parkin NA; McKeown HF; Sandler PJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Jun; 119(6):572-7. PubMed ID: 11395699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of activator and high-pull headgear combination therapy: skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue profile changes.
Marşan G
Eur J Orthod; 2007 Apr; 29(2):140-8. PubMed ID: 17488997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Treatment effects of the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance on patients with Class II malocclusion.
Pangrazio-Kulbersh V; Berger JL; Chermak DS; Kaczynski R; Simon ES; Haerian A
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Mar; 123(3):286-95. PubMed ID: 12637901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A controlled clinical trial of the effects of the Twin Block and Dynamax appliances on the hard and soft tissues.
Lee RT; Kyi CS; Mack GJ
Eur J Orthod; 2007 Jun; 29(3):272-82. PubMed ID: 17456506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Long-term comparison of treatment outcome and stability of Class II patients treated with functional appliances versus bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy.
Berger JL; Pangrazio-Kulbersh V; George C; Kaczynski R
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Apr; 127(4):451-64; quiz 516-7. PubMed ID: 15821690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study.
Jena AK; Duggal R; Parkash H
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Nov; 130(5):594-602. PubMed ID: 17110256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Soft tissue facial profile changes following functional appliance therapy.
Quintão C; Helena I; Brunharo VP; Menezes RC; Almeida MA
Eur J Orthod; 2006 Feb; 28(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 16113035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Stability of skeletal Class II correction with 2 surgical techniques: the sagittal split ramus osteotomy and the total mandibular subapical alveolar osteotomy.
Pangrazio-Kulbersh V; Berger JL; Kaczynski R; Shunock M
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Aug; 120(2):134-43. PubMed ID: 11500654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effects of the reciprocal mini-chin cup appliance.
Aslan BI; Dinçer M
Eur J Orthod; 2008 Feb; 30(1):80-8. PubMed ID: 18276929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Treatment effects of the edgewise Herbst appliance: a cephalometric and tomographic investigation.
VanLaecken R; Martin CA; Dischinger T; Razmus T; Ngan P
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Nov; 130(5):582-93. PubMed ID: 17110255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and cervical headgear appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment.
de Oliveira JN; Rodrigues de Almeida R; Rodrigues de Almeida M; de Oliveira JN
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Jul; 132(1):54-62. PubMed ID: 17628251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A cephalometric study of Class II malocclusions treated with mandibular surgery.
Burden D; Johnston C; Kennedy D; Harradine N; Stevenson M
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Jan; 131(1):7.e1-8. PubMed ID: 17208097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Herbst appliance in the mixed dentition.
de Almeida MR; Henriques JF; de Almeida RR; Weber U; McNamara JA
Angle Orthod; 2005 Jul; 75(4):540-7. PubMed ID: 16097222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion in adults: stepwise vs single-step advancement with the Herbst appliance.
Purkayastha SK; Rabie AB; Wong R
World J Orthod; 2008; 9(3):233-43. PubMed ID: 18834006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
