448 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21752510)
1. An in vitro evaluation of rigid internal fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus osteotomies: setback surgery.
Brasileiro BF; Grotta-Grempel R; Ambrosano GM; Passeri LA
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Apr; 70(4):941-51. PubMed ID: 21752510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. An in vitro evaluation of rigid internal fixation techniques for sagittal split ramus osteotomies: advancement surgery.
Brasileiro BF; Grempel RG; Ambrosano GM; Passeri LA
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Apr; 67(4):809-17. PubMed ID: 19304039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A biomechanical evaluation of bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomy fixation techniques.
Peterson GP; Haug RH; Van Sickels J
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2005 Sep; 63(9):1317-24. PubMed ID: 16122596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. In vitro biomechanical evaluation of the use of conventional and locking miniplate/screw systems for sagittal split ramus osteotomy.
Ribeiro-Junior PD; Magro-Filho O; Shastri KA; Papageorge MB
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 Apr; 68(4):724-30. PubMed ID: 19962812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An in vitro comparison of an adjustable bone fixation system.
Van Sickels JE; Peterson GP; Holms S; Haug RH
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2005 Nov; 63(11):1620-5. PubMed ID: 16243179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. In vitro biomechanical evaluation of fixation methods of sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular setback.
Oh JS; Kim SG
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2015 Mar; 43(2):186-91. PubMed ID: 25550092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. In vitro biomechanical evaluation of sagittal split osteotomy fixation with a specifically designed miniplate.
Pereira Filho VA; Iamashita HY; Monnazzi MS; Gabrielli MF; Vaz LG; Passeri LA
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2013 Mar; 42(3):316-20. PubMed ID: 22898312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. In vitro comparison of 1.5 mm vs. 2.0 mm screws for fixation in the sagittal split osteotomy.
Scaf de Molon R; de Ávila ÉD; Scartezini GR; Bonini Campos JA; Vaz LG; Real Gabrielli MF; Pereira Filho VA
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2011 Dec; 39(8):574-7. PubMed ID: 21227709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative biomechanical and photoelastic evaluation of different fixation techniques of sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular advancement.
Sato FR; Asprino L; Consani S; de Moraes M
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 Jan; 68(1):160-6. PubMed ID: 20006171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparative study of skeletal stability between bicortical resorbable and titanium screw fixation after sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular prognathism.
Paeng JY; Hong J; Kim CS; Kim MJ
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2012 Dec; 40(8):660-4. PubMed ID: 22209495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Does fixation method affects temporomandibular joints after mandibular advancement?
Ureturk EU; Apaydin A
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2018 Jun; 46(6):923-931. PubMed ID: 29724535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. In vitro biomechanical comparison of six different fixation methods following 5-mm sagittal split advancement osteotomies.
Oguz Y; Watanabe ER; Reis JM; Spin-Neto R; Gabrielli MA; Pereira-Filho VA
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2015 Aug; 44(8):984-8. PubMed ID: 25840861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of five different fixation techniques of sagittal split ramus osteotomy using three-dimensional finite elements analysis.
Sato FR; Asprino L; Noritomi PY; da Silva JV; de Moraes M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Aug; 41(8):934-41. PubMed ID: 22510341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A biomechanical evaluation of mandibular angle fracture plating techniques.
Haug RH; Fattahi TT; Goltz M
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2001 Oct; 59(10):1199-210. PubMed ID: 11573182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. In vitro biomechanical evaluation of modified plating techniques for bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular advancement.
Sener I; Arıcı S; Bereket C; Tek M
J Craniofac Surg; 2012 Sep; 23(5):1573-6. PubMed ID: 22976664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparative biomechanical evaluation of mandibular condyle fracture plating techniques.
Asprino L; Consani S; de Moraes M
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Mar; 64(3):452-6. PubMed ID: 16487808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Analysis of stress distribution on fixation of bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy with resorbable plates and screws using the finite-element method.
Sarkarat F; Motamedi MH; Bohluli B; Moharamnejad N; Ansari S; Shahabi-Sirjani H
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Jun; 70(6):1434-8. PubMed ID: 21820783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparative evaluation of the hybrid technique for fixation of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular advancement by mechanical, photoelastic, and finite element analysis.
Sato FR; Asprino L; Consani S; Noritomi PY; de Moraes M
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2012 Nov; 114(5 Suppl):S60-8. PubMed ID: 23083958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparative evaluation of different fixation techniques of the sagittal split ramus osteotomy in 10 mm advancements: Mechanical testing and screw insertion torque.
Sigua-Rodriguez EA; de Medeiros RC; Goulart DR; Bomfim-Azevedo VL; Olate S; de Albergaria-Barbosa JR
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2018 Dec; 46(12):2082-2087. PubMed ID: 30322777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of different fixation methods following sagittal split ramus osteotomies using three-dimensional finite elements analysis. Part 1: advancement surgery-posterior loading.
Erkmen E; Simşek B; Yücel E; Kurt A
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2005 Jul; 34(5):551-8. PubMed ID: 16053877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
