896 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18617100)
1. 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]
2. Comparison and measurement of the amount of anchorage loss of the molars with and without the use of implant anchorage during canine retraction.
Thiruvenkatachari B; Pavithranand A; Rajasigamani K; Kyung HM
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Apr; 129(4):551-4. PubMed ID: 16627183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Mini-screw implant or transpalatal arch-mediated anchorage reinforcement during canine retraction: a randomized clinical trial.
Sharma M; Sharma V; Khanna B
J Orthod; 2012 Jun; 39(2):102-10. PubMed ID: 22773673
[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. 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]
7. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of anchorage loss during en-masse retraction with indirectly loaded miniscrews in patients with bimaxillary protrusion.
Monga N; Kharbanda OP; Samrit V
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Aug; 150(2):274-82. PubMed ID: 27476360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Canine retraction and anchorage loss: self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study.
da Costa Monini A; Júnior LG; Martins RP; Vianna AP
Angle Orthod; 2014 Sep; 84(5):846-52. PubMed ID: 24592906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Clinical application of micro-implant anchorage in initial orthodontic retraction.
Wahabuddin S; Mascarenhas R; Iqbal M; Husain A
J Oral Implantol; 2015 Feb; 41(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 23573806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Anchorage value of surgical titanium screws in orthodontic tooth movement.
Hedayati Z; Hashemi SM; Zamiri B; Fattahi HR
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2007 Jul; 36(7):588-92. PubMed ID: 17524619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Miniscrew implant-supported maxillary canine retraction with and without corticotomy-facilitated orthodontics.
Aboul-Ela SM; El-Beialy AR; El-Sayed KM; Selim EM; El-Mangoury NH; Mostafa YA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Feb; 139(2):252-9. PubMed ID: 21300255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Group A T-loop for differential moment mechanics: an implant study.
Martins RP; Buschang PH; Gandini LG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Feb; 135(2):182-9. PubMed ID: 19201324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of corticotomy-facilitated orthodontics and piezocision in rapid canine retraction.
Abbas NH; Sabet NE; Hassan IT
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Apr; 149(4):473-80. PubMed ID: 27021451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Duration and anchorage management of canine retraction with bodily versus tipping mechanics.
Shpack N; Davidovitch M; Sarne O; Panayi N; Vardimon AD
Angle Orthod; 2008 Jan; 78(1):95-100. PubMed ID: 18193953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Rate of tooth movement under heavy and light continuous orthodontic forces.
Yee JA; Türk T; Elekdağ-Türk S; Cheng LL; Darendeliler MA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Aug; 136(2):150.e1-9; discussion 150-1. PubMed ID: 19651334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Changes over time in canine retraction: an implant study.
Martins RP; Buschang PH; Gandini LG; Rossouw PE
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):87-93. PubMed ID: 19577153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A clinical comparison between nickel titanium springs and elastomeric chains.
Bokas J; Woods M
Aust Orthod J; 2006 May; 22(1):39-46. PubMed ID: 16792244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
