647 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18617099)
1. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial.
Upadhyay M; Yadav S; Nagaraj K; Patil S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jul; 134(1):18-29.e1. PubMed ID: 18617099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study.
Upadhyay M; Yadav S; Patil S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Dec; 134(6):803-10. PubMed ID: 19061808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion.
Liu YH; Ding WH; Liu J; Li Q
J Oral Rehabil; 2009 Sep; 36(9):687-95. PubMed ID: 19602104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of mini-implants in Class II division 1 patients.
Upadhyay M; Yadav S; Nagaraj K; Nanda R
Angle Orthod; 2009 Mar; 79(2):240-7. PubMed ID: 19216590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparative study between conventional en-masse retraction (sliding mechanics) and en-masse retraction using orthodontic micro implant.
Basha AG; Shantaraj R; Mogegowda SB
Implant Dent; 2010 Apr; 19(2):128-36. PubMed ID: 20386216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial.
Al-Sibaie S; Hajeer MY
Eur J Orthod; 2014 Jun; 36(3):275-83. PubMed ID: 23787192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mini-implants vs fixed functional appliances for treatment of young adult Class II female patients: a prospective clinical trial.
Upadhyay M; Yadav S; Nagaraj K; Uribe F; Nanda R
Angle Orthod; 2012 Mar; 82(2):294-303. PubMed ID: 21867432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage.
Thiruvenkatachari B; Ammayappan P; Kandaswamy R
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jul; 134(1):30-5. PubMed ID: 18617100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.
Yao CC; Lai EH; Chang JZ; Chen I; Chen YJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Nov; 134(5):615-24. PubMed ID: 18984393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Analysis of temporary skeletal anchorage devices used for en-masse retraction: a preliminary study.
Kim SH; Hwang YS; Ferreira A; Chung KR
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Aug; 136(2):268-76. PubMed ID: 19651358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cephalometric comparison of vertical changes between Begg and preadjusted edgewise appliances.
Chhibber A; Upadhyay M; Shetty VS; Mogra S
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Dec; 33(6):712-20. PubMed ID: 21436189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effects of retraction of anterior teeth and initial soft tissue variables on lip changes in Japanese adults.
Hayashida H; Ioi H; Nakata S; Takahashi I; Counts AL
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Aug; 33(4):419-26. PubMed ID: 20966067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Differences between sliding mechanics with implant anchorage and straight-pull headgear and intermaxillary elastics in adults with bimaxillary protrusion.
Koyama I; Iino S; Abe Y; Takano-Yamamoto T; Miyawaki S
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Apr; 33(2):126-31. PubMed ID: 21059875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Midpalatal miniscrews and high-pull headgear for anteroposterior and vertical anchorage control: cephalometric comparisons of treatment changes.
Lee J; Miyazawa K; Tabuchi M; Kawaguchi M; Shibata M; Goto S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Aug; 144(2):238-50. PubMed ID: 23910205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Treatment effects of microimplant-aided sliding mechanics on distal retraction of posterior teeth.
Oh YH; Park HS; Kwon TG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Apr; 139(4):470-81. PubMed ID: 21457858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Soft tissue, skeletal and dentoalveolar changes following conventional anchorage molar distalization therapy in class II non-growing subjects: a multicentric retrospective study.
Fontana M; Cozzani M; Caprioglio A
Prog Orthod; 2012 May; 13(1):30-41. PubMed ID: 22583585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth.
Kumar PS; Kharbanda OP
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jan; 135(1):5-6; author reply 6-7. PubMed ID: 19121487
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Effective en-masse retraction design with orthodontic mini-implant anchorage: a finite element analysis.
Sung SJ; Jang GW; Chun YS; Moon YS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 May; 137(5):648-57. PubMed ID: 20451784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Vertical-dimension control during en-masse retraction with mini-implant anchorage.
Upadhyay M; Yadav S; Nanda R
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Jul; 138(1):96-108. PubMed ID: 20620840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Randomized clinical trial comparing control of maxillary anchorage with 2 retraction techniques.
Xu TM; Zhang X; Oh HS; Boyd RL; Korn EL; Baumrind S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Nov; 138(5):544.e1-9; discussion 544-5. PubMed ID: 21055588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
