157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19577153)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Physical properties of root cementum: part 14. The amount of root resorption after force application for 12 weeks on maxillary and mandibular premolars: a microcomputed-tomography study.
Paetyangkul A; Türk T; Elekdağ-Türk S; Jones AS; Petocz P; Darendeliler MA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Oct; 136(4):492.e1-9; discussion 492-3. PubMed ID: 19815148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial.
da Costa Monini A; Júnior LGG; Vianna AP; Martins RP
Clin Oral Investig; 2017 May; 21(4):1047-1053. PubMed ID: 27246754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Tooth movement rate and anchorage lost during canine retraction:
da C Monini A; Gandini LG; Vianna AP; Martins RP; Jacob HB
Angle Orthod; 2019 Jul; 89(4):559-565. PubMed ID: 30741577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Three-dimensional modeling and finite element analysis in treatment planning for orthodontic tooth movement.
Ammar HH; Ngan P; Crout RJ; Mucino VH; Mukdadi OM
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Jan; 139(1):e59-71. PubMed ID: 21195258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Comparison of rate of canine retraction into recent extraction site with and without gingival fiberotomy: a clinical study.
Kalra A; Jaggi N; Bansal M; Goel S; Medsinge SV; Abraham R; Jasoria G
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2013 May; 14(3):419-26. PubMed ID: 24171983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. The effects of different sectional arches in canine retraction.
Dinçer M; Işcan HN
Eur J Orthod; 1994 Aug; 16(4):317-23. PubMed ID: 7957657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Effectiveness of laceback ligatures on maxillary canine retraction.
Sueri MY; Turk T
Angle Orthod; 2006 Nov; 76(6):1010-4. PubMed ID: 17090165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign.
Kravitz ND; Kusnoto B; BeGole E; Obrez A; Agran B
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jan; 135(1):27-35. PubMed ID: 19121497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mandibular canine intrusion with the segmented arch technique: A finite element method study.
Caballero GM; Carvalho Filho OA; Hargreaves BO; Brito HH; Magalhães Júnior PA; Oliveira DD
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Jun; 147(6):691-7. PubMed ID: 26038072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Testing force systems and biomechanics--measured tooth movements from differential moment closing loops.
Kuhlberg AJ; Priebe D
Angle Orthod; 2003 Jun; 73(3):270-80. PubMed ID: 12828435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
