These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20578869)

  • 1. Chin cup effects using two different force magnitudes in the management of Class III malocclusions.
    Abdelnaby YL; Nassar EA
    Angle Orthod; 2010 Sep; 80(5):957-62. PubMed ID: 20578869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of double-plate appliance/facemask combination and facemask therapy in treating class III malocclusions.
    Gencer D; Kaygisiz E; Yüksel S; Tortop T
    Angle Orthod; 2015 Mar; 85(2):278-83. PubMed ID: 24913739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Dental and skeletal components of Class II open bite treatment with a modified Thurow appliance.
    Jacob HB; dos Santos-Pinto A; Buschang PH
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2014; 19(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 24713556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of double-plate appliance and facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions.
    Ucem TT; Ucuncü N; Yüksel S
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2004 Dec; 126(6):672-9. PubMed ID: 15592214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Treatment and posttreatment effects of a facial mask combined with a bite-block appliance in Class III malocclusion.
    Cozza P; Baccetti T; Mucedero M; Pavoni C; Franchi L
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Sep; 138(3):300-10. PubMed ID: 20816299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Modified tandem traction bow appliance compared with facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions.
    Tortop T; Kaygisiz E; Gencer D; Yuksel S; Atalay Z
    Angle Orthod; 2014 Jul; 84(4):642-8. PubMed ID: 24274958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Molar heights and incisor inclinations in adults with Class II and Class III skeletal open-bite malocclusions.
    Arriola-Guillén LE; Flores-Mir C
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Mar; 145(3):325-32. PubMed ID: 24582024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Long-term stability of rapid maxillary expansion combined with chincup protraction followed by fixed appliances.
    Palma JC; Tejedor-Sanz N; Oteo MD; Alarcón JA
    Angle Orthod; 2015 Mar; 85(2):270-7. PubMed ID: 24892796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage.
    Sar C; Arman-Özçırpıcı A; Uçkan S; Yazıcı AC
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 May; 139(5):636-49. PubMed ID: 21536207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes in postural class III malocclusion treated with a maxillary removable appliance.
    Alhaija ES
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2006; 31(2):149-52. PubMed ID: 17315814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effects of facemask and reverse chin cup on maxillary deficient patients.
    Showkatbakhsh R; Jamilian A; Ghassemi M; Ghassemi A; Taban T; Imani Z
    J Orthod; 2012 Jun; 39(2):95-101. PubMed ID: 22773672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Cephalometric evaluation of class-III patients with chin cap and tongue guard.
    Danaie SM; Salehi P
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2005 Jun; 23(2):63-6. PubMed ID: 16012206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A novel approach in treatment of maxillary deficiency by reverse chin cup.
    Showkatbakhsh R; Jamilian A
    Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2010; 21(2):27-31. PubMed ID: 20687313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Is bodily advancement of the lower incisors possible?
    Strahm C; De Sousa AP; Grobéty D; Mavropoulos A; Kiliaridis S
    Eur J Orthod; 2009 Aug; 31(4):425-31. PubMed ID: 19395370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The efficacy of Hybrid Hyrax-Mentoplate combination in early Class III treatment: a novel approach and pilot study.
    Katyal V; Wilmes B; Nienkemper M; Darendeliler MA; Sampson W; Drescher D
    Aust Orthod J; 2016 May; 32(1):88-96. PubMed ID: 27468596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Maxillary protraction using a hybrid hyrax-facemask combination.
    Nienkemper M; Wilmes B; Pauls A; Drescher D
    Prog Orthod; 2013 May; 14(1):5. PubMed ID: 24325812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effects of maxillary protraction and its long-term stability--a clinical trial in Chinese adolescents.
    Chen L; Chen R; Yang Y; Ji G; Shen G
    Eur J Orthod; 2012 Feb; 34(1):88-95. PubMed ID: 21325335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Treating Class II malocclusion in children. Vertical skeletal effects of high-pull or low-pull headgear during comprehensive orthodontic treatment and retention.
    Antonarakis GS; Kiliaridis S
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2015 May; 18(2):86-95. PubMed ID: 25545335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Biology of biomechanics: Finite element analysis of a statically determinate system to rotate the occlusal plane for correction of a skeletal Class III open-bite malocclusion.
    Roberts WE; Viecilli RF; Chang C; Katona TR; Paydar NH
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Dec; 148(6):943-55. PubMed ID: 26672700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment.
    Ngan P; Wilmes B; Drescher D; Martin C; Weaver B; Gunel E
    Prog Orthod; 2015; 16():26. PubMed ID: 26303311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.