502 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19641760)
1. A comparison of the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects caused by herbst and mandibular protraction appliances in the treatment of mandibular Class II malocclusions.
Alves PF; Oliveira AG
World J Orthod; 2008; 9(1):e1-19. PubMed ID: 19641760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Maxillary molar distalization or mandibular enhancement: a cephalometric comparison of comprehensive orthodontic treatment including the pendulum and the Herbst appliances.
Burkhardt DR; McNamara JA; Baccetti T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Feb; 123(2):108-16. PubMed ID: 12594414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of 2 comprehensive Class II treatment protocols including the bonded Herbst and headgear appliances: a double-blind study of consecutively treated patients at puberty.
Baccetti T; Franchi L; Stahl F
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jun; 135(6):698.e1-10; discussion 698-9. PubMed ID: 19524823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of the zygoma anchorage system with cervical headgear in buccal segment distalization.
Kaya B; Arman A; Uçkan S; Yazici AC
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Aug; 31(4):417-24. PubMed ID: 19509344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluating the effect of Sabbagh Universal Spring during treatment of growing class II malocclusions.
Hanandeh BA; El-Bialy AA
Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2010; 21(4):13-24. PubMed ID: 21314084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Treatment effects produced by Fränkel appliance in patients with class II, division 1 malocclusion.
Rodrigues de Almeida M; Castanha Henriques JF; Rodrigues de Almeida R; Ursi W
Angle Orthod; 2002 Oct; 72(5):418-25. PubMed ID: 12401050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mandibular incisor position changes in relation to amount of bite jumping during Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment: a radiographic-cephalometric study.
Martin J; Pancherz H
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):44-51. PubMed ID: 19577147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effectiveness of twin-block and Mandibular Protraction Appliance-IV in the improvement of pharyngeal airway passage dimensions in Class II malocclusion subjects with a retrognathic mandible.
Jena AK; Singh SP; Utreja AK
Angle Orthod; 2013 Jul; 83(4):728-34. PubMed ID: 23241007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Soft tissue changes produced by a banded-type Herbst appliance in late mixed dentition patients.
de Almeida MR; Flores-Mir C; Brandão AG; de Almeida RR; de Almeida-Pedrin RR
World J Orthod; 2008; 9(2):121-31. PubMed ID: 18575306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cephalometric study of Class II Division 1 patients treated with an extended-duration, reinforced, banded Herbst appliance followed by fixed appliances.
Tomblyn T; Rogers M; Andrews L; Martin C; Tremont T; Gunel E; Ngan P
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Nov; 150(5):818-830. PubMed ID: 27871709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Dentofacial effects of skeletal anchored treatment modalities for the correction of maxillary retrognathia.
Sar C; Sahinoğlu Z; Özçirpici AA; Uçkan S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Jan; 145(1):41-54. PubMed ID: 24373654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Efficiency of three mandibular anchorage forms in Herbst treatment: a cephalometric investigation.
Weschler D; Pancherz H
Angle Orthod; 2005 Jan; 75(1):23-7. PubMed ID: 15747811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Initial and late treatment effects of headgear-Herbst appliance with mandibular step-by-step advancement.
Hägg U; Du X; Rabie AB
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2002 Nov; 122(5):477-85. PubMed ID: 12439475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Changes in soft tissue profile following the treatment using a Herbst appliance--a photographic analysis.
Nedeljković N; Cubrilo D; Hadzi-Mihailović M
Vojnosanit Pregl; 2014 Jan; 71(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 24516984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes concurrent to use of Twin Block appliance in class II division I cases with a deficient mandible: a cephalometric study.
Sharma AK; Sachdev V; Singla A; Kirtaniya BC
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2012; 30(3):218-26. PubMed ID: 23263425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effects of the Herbst appliance in growing orthodontic patients with different underlying vertical patterns.
Deen E; Woods MG
Aust Orthod J; 2015 May; 31(1):59-68. PubMed ID: 26219148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Treatment effects of the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance on patients with Class II malocclusion.
Pangrazio-Kulbersh V; Berger JL; Chermak DS; Kaczynski R; Simon ES; Haerian A
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Mar; 123(3):286-95. PubMed ID: 12637901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effects of the reciprocal mini-chin cup appliance.
Aslan BI; Dinçer M
Eur J Orthod; 2008 Feb; 30(1):80-8. PubMed ID: 18276929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Treatment effects produced by preorthodontic trainer appliance in patients with class II division I malocclusion.
Das UM; Reddy D
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2010; 28(1):30-3. PubMed ID: 20215669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
