286 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21867432)
1. Mini-implants vs fixed functional appliances for treatment of young adult Class II female patients: a prospective clinical trial.
Upadhyay M; Yadav S; Nagaraj K; Uribe F; Nanda R
Angle Orthod; 2012 Mar; 82(2):294-303. PubMed ID: 21867432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of mini-implants in Class II division 1 patients.
Upadhyay M; Yadav S; Nagaraj K; Nanda R
Angle Orthod; 2009 Mar; 79(2):240-7. PubMed ID: 19216590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial.
Upadhyay M; Yadav S; Nagaraj K; Patil S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jul; 134(1):18-29.e1. PubMed ID: 18617099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study.
Upadhyay M; Yadav S; Patil S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Dec; 134(6):803-10. PubMed ID: 19061808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cephalometric effects of the Jones Jig appliance followed by fixed appliances in Class II malocclusion treatment.
Patel MP; Henriques JF; Freitas KM; Grec RH
Dental Press J Orthod; 2014; 19(3):44-51. PubMed ID: 25162565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.
Yao CC; Lai EH; Chang JZ; Chen I; Chen YJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Nov; 134(5):615-24. PubMed ID: 18984393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Noncompliance maxillary molar distalization with the first class appliance: a randomized controlled trial.
Papadopoulos MA; Melkos AB; Athanasiou AE
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 May; 137(5):586.e1-586.e13; discussion 586-7. PubMed ID: 20451774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The effectiveness of pendulum, K-loop, and distal jet distalization techniques in growing children and its effects on anchor unit: A comparative study.
Marure PS; Patil RU; Reddy S; Prakash A; Kshetrimayum N; Shukla R
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2016; 34(4):331-40. PubMed ID: 27681396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Correction of a severe skeletal Class II occlusion with a fixed functional appliance anchored on mini-implants: a patient report.
Gandedkar NH; Revankar AV; Ganeshkar SV
World J Orthod; 2010; 11(4):369-79. PubMed ID: 21491004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cephalometric comparison of vertical changes between Begg and preadjusted edgewise appliances.
Chhibber A; Upadhyay M; Shetty VS; Mogra S
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Dec; 33(6):712-20. PubMed ID: 21436189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device used with miniscrew anchorage.
Aslan BI; Kucukkaraca E; Turkoz C; Dincer M
Angle Orthod; 2014 Jan; 84(1):76-87. PubMed ID: 23772682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A segmented appliance for space closure followed by Invisalign and fixed appliances.
Uribe F; Cutrera A; Nanda R
Orthodontics (Chic.); 2011; 12(4):386-95. PubMed ID: 22299111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. En-masse retraction dependent on a temporary skeletal anchorage device without posterior bonding or banding in an adult with severe bidentoalveolar protrusion: seven years posttreatment.
Chung KR; Jeong DM; Kim SH; Ko YI; Nelson G
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Apr; 141(4):484-94. PubMed ID: 22464531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial.
Al-Sibaie S; Hajeer MY
Eur J Orthod; 2014 Jun; 36(3):275-83. PubMed ID: 23787192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparative efficiency of Class II malocclusion treatment with the pendulum appliance or two maxillary premolar extractions and edgewise appliances [corrected].
Pinzan-Vercelino CR; Janson G; Pinzan A; de Almeida RR; de Freitas MR; de Freitas KM
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):333-40. PubMed ID: 19395372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of the zygoma anchorage system with cervical headgear in buccal segment distalization.
Kaya B; Arman A; Uçkan S; Yazici AC
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Aug; 31(4):417-24. PubMed ID: 19509344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Asymmetric severe skeletal Class II division 1 patient with temporomandibular joint disorder treated with zygomatic anchorage devices and Ni-Ti alloy wires.
Ishida T; Ono T
Angle Orthod; 2014 Sep; 84(5):919-30. PubMed ID: 24713069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparison of the effects of 2 mandibular anchorage systems used with a 3-dimensional bimetric maxillary distalizing arch.
Okay C; Gülsen A; Keykubat A; Ucem TT; Yüksel S
World J Orthod; 2006; 7(2):125-33. PubMed ID: 16779970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Soft tissue, skeletal and dentoalveolar changes following conventional anchorage molar distalization therapy in class II non-growing subjects: a multicentric retrospective study.
Fontana M; Cozzani M; Caprioglio A
Prog Orthod; 2012 May; 13(1):30-41. PubMed ID: 22583585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects.
Mariani L; Maino G; Caprioglio A
Prog Orthod; 2014; 15(1):43. PubMed ID: 25138818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
