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 *

172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22008301)

  • 1. The effect of an anterior biteplate on dental and skeletal Class II correction using headgears: a cephalometric study.
    Thurman MM; King GJ; Ramsay DS; Wheeler TT; Phillips C
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2011 Nov; 14(4):213-21. PubMed ID: 22008301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Management of severe Class II division 1 malocclusion: a case report.
    Felicita AS; Chandrasekar S; Sundari KK
    Aust Orthod J; 2011 Nov; 27(2):181-90. PubMed ID: 22372276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Comparison of arch dimension changes in 1-phase vs 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion.
    Wortham JR; Dolce C; McGorray SP; Le H; King GJ; Wheeler TT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):65-74. PubMed ID: 19577150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Cephalometric evaluation of two treatment strategies for deep overbite correction.
    Hans MG; Kishiyama C; Parker SH; Wolf GR; Noachtar R
    Angle Orthod; 1994; 64(4):265-74; discussion 275-6. PubMed ID: 7978521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Maxillary expansion in Class II correction with orthopedic cervical headgear. A posteroanterior cephalometric study.
    Kirjavainen M; Kirjavainen T
    Angle Orthod; 2003 Jun; 73(3):281-5. PubMed ID: 12828436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Activator versus cervical headgear: superimpositional cephalometric comparison.
    Haralabakis NB; Halazonetis DJ; Sifakakis IB
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Mar; 123(3):296-305. PubMed ID: 12637902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. An analysis of the corrective contribution in activator treatment.
    Cozza P; De Toffol L; Iacopini L
    Angle Orthod; 2004 Dec; 74(6):741-8. PubMed ID: 15673134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of activator and high-pull headgear combination therapy: skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue profile changes.
    Marşan G
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Apr; 29(2):140-8. PubMed ID: 17488997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Two-phase treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion with the combination of the twin-block appliance and high-pull headgear.
    Lv Y; Yan B; Wang L
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Aug; 142(2):246-55. PubMed ID: 22858335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Classification and treatment of Class II subdivision malocclusions.
    Cassidy SE; Jackson SR; Turpin DL; Ramsay DS; Spiekerman C; Huang GJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Apr; 145(4):443-51. PubMed ID: 24703282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Influence of the cephalometric characteristics on the occlusal success rate of Class II malocclusions treated with nonextraction or with two maxillary premolar extraction protocols.
    Janson G; Simão TM; Barros SE; Janson M; de Freitas MR
    World J Orthod; 2010; 11(4):e63-71. PubMed ID: 21490991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.