These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18070424)

  • 1. [Treatment effects of magnetic Twin-block appliance for class II cases].
    Wu JY; Liu J; Li QS; Xu TM; Lin JX
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2007 Sep; 42(9):519-24. PubMed ID: 18070424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Temporomandibular joint adaptations following two-phase therapy: an MRI study.
    Wadhawan N; Kumar S; Kharbanda OP; Duggal R; Sharma R
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2008 Nov; 11(4):235-50. PubMed ID: 18950321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy.
    Baccetti T; Franchi L; Toth LR; McNamara JA
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Aug; 118(2):159-70. PubMed ID: 10935956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A prospective study of Twin-block appliance therapy assessed by magnetic resonance imaging.
    Chintakanon K; Sampson W; Wilkinson T; Townsend G
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Nov; 118(5):494-504. PubMed ID: 11094363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Posttreatment changes after successful correction of Class II malocclusions with the twin block appliance.
    Mills CM; McCulloch KJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Jul; 118(1):24-33. PubMed ID: 10893470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. [The effects of twin-block magnetic appliance on the early skeletal Class III malocclusion].
    Xu Y; Hu J; Li P
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 1999 May; 34(3):148-50. PubMed ID: 11776925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Post-treatment occlusal changes in Class II division 2 subjects treated with the Herbst appliance.
    Bock N; Ruf S
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Dec; 30(6):606-13. PubMed ID: 19054814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Topography and morphology of the mandibular condyle during fixed functional orthopedic treatment --a magnetic resonance imaging study.
    Kinzinger G; Kober C; Diedrich P
    J Orofac Orthop; 2007 Mar; 68(2):124-47. PubMed ID: 17372710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Temporomandibular joint remodeling in adolescents and young adults during Herbst treatment: A prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging and cephalometric radiographic investigation.
    Ruf S; Pancherz H
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Jun; 115(6):607-18. PubMed ID: 10358242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A cephalometric study of the Class II correction effects of the Eureka Spring.
    Stromeyer EL; Caruso JM; DeVincenzo JP
    Angle Orthod; 2002 Jun; 72(3):203-10. PubMed ID: 12071603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of Twin Block, Andresen and removable appliances in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
    Trenouth MJ
    Funct Orthod; 1992; 9(4):26-31. PubMed ID: 1452055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Herbst appliance therapy and temporomandibular joint disc position: a prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study.
    Aidar LA; Abrahão M; Yamashita HK; Dominguez GC
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Apr; 129(4):486-96. PubMed ID: 16627174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.