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 *

175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21300221)

  • 1. Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial.
    DiBiase AT; Nasr IH; Scott P; Cobourne MT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Feb; 139(2):e111-6. PubMed ID: 21300221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances.
    Fleming PS; DiBiase AT; Lee RT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Jun; 137(6):738-42. PubMed ID: 20685528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Class II treatment efficiency in maxillary premolar extraction and nonextraction protocols.
    Janson G; Barros SE; de Freitas MR; Henriques JF; Pinzan A
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):490-8. PubMed ID: 17920502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. An assessment of extraction versus nonextraction orthodontic treatment using the peer assessment rating (PAR) index.
    Holman JK; Hans MG; Nelson S; Powers MP
    Angle Orthod; 1998 Dec; 68(6):527-34. PubMed ID: 9851350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a prospective clinical trial.
    Pandis N; Strigou S; Eliades T
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2006 Nov; 9(4):193-8. PubMed ID: 17101026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material.
    Turnbull NR; Birnie DJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Mar; 131(3):395-9. PubMed ID: 17346597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances.
    Fleming PS; DiBiase AT; Sarri G; Lee RT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 May; 135(5):597-602. PubMed ID: 19409342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
    El-Angbawi AM; Bearn DR; McIntyre GT
    Trials; 2014 Oct; 15():389. PubMed ID: 25288125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. PAR evaluation of treated Class I extraction patients.
    Freitas KM; Freitas DS; Valarelli FP; Freitas MR; Janson G
    Angle Orthod; 2008 Mar; 78(2):270-4. PubMed ID: 18251612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Influence of the quality of the finished occlusion on postretention occlusal relapse.
    de Freitas KM; Janson G; de Freitas MR; Pinzan A; Henriques JF; Pinzan-Vercelino CR
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):428.e9-14. PubMed ID: 17920494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An assessment of orthodontic treatment using occlusal indices.
    Chew MT; Sandham A
    Singapore Dent J; 2001 Jun; 24(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 11699355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Non-extraction treatment with self-ligating and conventional brackets].
    Jiang RP; Fu MK
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2008 Aug; 43(8):459-63. PubMed ID: 19087583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Failure patterns of different bracket systems and their influence on treatment duration: A retrospective cohort study.
    Stasinopoulos D; Papageorgiou SN; Kirsch F; Daratsianos N; Jäger A; Bourauel C
    Angle Orthod; 2018 May; 88(3):338-347. PubMed ID: 29394090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets.
    Hamilton R; Goonewardene MS; Murray K
    Aust Orthod J; 2008 Nov; 24(2):102-9. PubMed ID: 19113074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The variable anchorage straight wire technique compared with the straight wire technique in deep overbite correction.
    Banaie F; Parikakis K; Moberg S; Hellsing E
    Eur J Orthod; 2005 Apr; 27(2):180-5. PubMed ID: 15817626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Orthodontic treatment time in 2- and 4-premolar-extraction protocols.
    Janson G; Maria FR; Barros SE; Freitas MR; Henriques JF
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 May; 129(5):666-71. PubMed ID: 16679207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Treatment complexity index for assessing the relationship of treatment duration and outcomes in a graduate orthodontics clinic.
    Vu CQ; Roberts WE; Hartsfield JK; Ofner S
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jan; 133(1):9.e1-13. PubMed ID: 18174061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Efficacy of orthodontic treatment according to the Peer Assessment Rating index].
    Piskorski D
    Ann Acad Med Stetin; 2003; 49():335-51. PubMed ID: 15552857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Occlusal outcome in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery with internal fixation.
    Baker NJ; David S; Barnard DW; Birnie DJ; Robinson SN
    Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1999 Apr; 37(2):90-3. PubMed ID: 10371307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in educational and private practice settings.
    Mascarenhas AK; Vig K
    J Dent Educ; 2002 Jan; 66(1):94-9. PubMed ID: 12358106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.