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 *

220 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18281262)

  • 1. Comparison of the effects of Twin Block and activator treatment on the soft tissue profile.
    Varlik SK; Gültan A; Tümer N
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Apr; 30(2):128-34. PubMed ID: 18281262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Long-term changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions following activator-headgear and fixed appliance treatment.
    Hänggi MP; Teuscher UM; Roos M; Peltomäki TA
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Dec; 30(6):598-605. PubMed ID: 18974068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment.
    Dolce C; McGorray SP; Brazeau L; King GJ; Wheeler TT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):481-9. PubMed ID: 17920501
    [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. Soft tissue effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy.
    Baysal A; Uysal T
    Eur J Orthod; 2013 Feb; 35(1):71-81. PubMed ID: 21357655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of the headgear activator and Herbst appliance--effects and post-treatment changes.
    Phan KL; Bendeus M; Hägg U; Hansen K; Rabie AB
    Eur J Orthod; 2006 Dec; 28(6):594-604. PubMed ID: 17142260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The integrated Herbst appliance--treatment effects in a group of adolescent males with Class II malocclusions compared with growth changes in an untreated control group.
    Hägglund P; Segerdal S; Forsberg CM
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Apr; 30(2):120-7. PubMed ID: 18216374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbst appliance.
    Sloss EA; Southard KA; Qian F; Stock SE; Mann KR; Meyer DL; Southard TE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Apr; 133(4):509-14. PubMed ID: 18405814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Long-term soft-tissue response to orthodontic treatment with early cervical headgear--a randomized study.
    Virkkula T; Kantomaa T; Julku J; Pirttiniemi P
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 May; 135(5):586-96. PubMed ID: 19409341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects.
    Türkkahraman H; Sayin MO
    Eur J Orthod; 2006 Feb; 28(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 16093256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Long-term treatment effects of the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel.
    Freeman DC; McNamara JA; Baccetti T; Franchi L; Fränkel C
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 May; 135(5):570.e1-6; discussion 570-1. PubMed ID: 19409337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Treatment effects of the R-appliance and twin block in Class II division 1 malocclusion.
    Jamilian A; Showkatbakhsh R; Amiri SS
    Eur J Orthod; 2011 Aug; 33(4):354-8. PubMed ID: 20956385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.