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 *

222 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20877731)

  • 1. Effectiveness of twin blocks and extraoral maxillary splint (Thurow) appliances for the correction of Class II relationships.
    Fernandes ÁF; Brunharo IH; Quintão CC; Costa MG; de Oliveira-Costa MR
    World J Orthod; 2010; 11(3):230-5. PubMed ID: 20877731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Dentoskeletal effects of the Bite-Jumping Appliance and the Twin-Block Appliance in the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial.
    Burhan AS; Nawaya FR
    Eur J Orthod; 2015 Jun; 37(3):330-7. PubMed ID: 25296729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Skeletal and dental components of Class II correction with the bionator and removable headgear splint appliances.
    Martins RP; da Rosa Martins JC; Martins LP; Buschang PH
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Dec; 134(6):732-41. PubMed ID: 19061799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Treatment effects of the R-appliance and twin block in Class II division 1 malocclusion.
    Jamilian A; Showkatbakhsh R; Amiri SS
    Eur J Orthod; 2011 Aug; 33(4):354-8. PubMed ID: 20956385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 15. Comparative evaluation of a new removable Jasper Jumper functional appliance vs an activator-headgear combination.
    Sari Z; Goyenc Y; Doruk C; Usumez S
    Angle Orthod; 2003 Jun; 73(3):286-93. PubMed ID: 12828437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Early vs late orthodontic treatment of deepbite: a prospective clinical trial in growing subjects.
    Baccetti T; Franchi L; Giuntini V; Masucci C; Vangelisti A; Defraia E
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Jul; 142(1):75-82. PubMed ID: 22748993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Skeletal and dental effects of a mini maxillary protraction appliance.
    Altug Z; Arslan AD
    Angle Orthod; 2006 May; 76(3):360-8. PubMed ID: 16637712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessment of mandibular growth and response to functional appliance treatment in prepubertal patients with different auxologic categories.
    Celli D; Gasperoni E; Oliva B; Deli R
    Prog Orthod; 2010; 11(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 20529625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.