135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20357734)
1. Short-term effects of the activator in skeletal class II division 1 patients with different vertical skeletal pattern. A retrospective study.
Greco M; Fichera G; Caltabiano M; Barbato E; Leonardi R
Minerva Stomatol; 2010 Mar; 59(3):61-74. PubMed ID: 20357734
[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. Effects of treatment with a combined maxillary protraction and chincap appliance in skeletal Class III patients with different vertical skeletal morphologies.
Yoshida I; Shoji T; Mizoguchi I
Eur J Orthod; 2007 Apr; 29(2):126-33. PubMed ID: 17218717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Long-term stability of dentoalveolar and skeletal changes after activator-headgear treatment.
Lerstøl M; Torget O; Vandevska-Radunovic V
Eur J Orthod; 2010 Feb; 32(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 19477971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Activator versus cervical headgear: superimpositional cephalometric comparison.
Haralabakis NB; Halazonetis DJ; Sifakakis IB
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Mar; 123(3):296-305. PubMed ID: 12637902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Effects of orthodontic treatment on mandibular rotation and displacement in Angle Class II division 1 malocclusions.
Phan XL; Schneider BJ; Sadowsky C; BeGole EA
Angle Orthod; 2004 Apr; 74(2):174-83. PubMed ID: 15132443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Sagittal mandibular changes with overbite correction in subjects with different mandibular growth directions: late mixed-dentition treatment effects.
Woods MG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Mar; 133(3):388-94. PubMed ID: 18331938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A cephalometric study of the skeletal and dento-alveolar effects of the modified Louisiana State University activator in Class II malocclusion.
Kang Y; Franchi L; Manton DJ; Schneider PM
Eur J Orthod; 2018 Apr; 40(2):164-175. PubMed ID: 29016763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Changes in mandibular growth direction during and after cervical headgear treatment.
Kim KR; Muhl ZF
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 May; 119(5):522-30. PubMed ID: 11343025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. The influence of functional orthodontics and mandibular sagittal split advancement osteotomy on dental and skeletal variables--a comparative cephalometric study.
Lohrmann B; Schwestka-Polly R; Nägerl H; Ihlow D; Kubein-Meesenburg D
Eur J Orthod; 2006 Dec; 28(6):553-60. PubMed ID: 17142259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Short-term skeletal and dental effects of the Xbow appliance as measured on lateral cephalograms.
Flores-Mir C; Barnett G; Higgins DW; Heo G; Major PW
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Dec; 136(6):822-32. PubMed ID: 19962605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Evaluation of mandibular propulsion appliances in children. A study of 18 cases].
Gigon S; Kerbrat JB; Péron JM
Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac; 2000 Nov; 101(5):245-51. PubMed ID: 11196141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Analysis of efficacy of functional appliances on mandibular growth.
Chen JY; Will LA; Niederman R
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2002 Nov; 122(5):470-6. PubMed ID: 12439474
[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. A cephalometric evaluation of the dental and facial-skeletal effects using the Bionator with stepwise protrusive activations.
Kumar S; Sidhu SS; Kharbanda OP
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1996; 20(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 8619967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Growth modulation using functional appliances--cephalometric predictors of successful response.
Kumar SA; Shetty KS; Prakash AT
Orthodontics (Chic.); 2013; 14(1):e50-9. PubMed ID: 23646338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
