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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22008301)

  • 21. Long-term stability of dentoalveolar and skeletal changes after activator-headgear treatment.
    Lerstøl M; Torget O; Vandevska-Radunovic V
    Eur J Orthod; 2010 Feb; 32(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 19477971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Profile changes associated with different orthopedic treatment approaches in Class III malocclusions.
    Arman A; Toygar TU; Abuhijleh E
    Angle Orthod; 2004 Dec; 74(6):733-40. PubMed ID: 15673133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparison of the effects of fixed and removable functional appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures.
    Bilgiç F; Hamamci O; Başaran G
    Aust Orthod J; 2011 Nov; 27(2):110-6. PubMed ID: 22372266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Cephalometric evaluation of Class II malocclusion treatment with cervical headgear and mandibular fixed appliances.
    Freitas MR; Lima DV; Freitas KM; Janson G; Henriques JF
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Oct; 30(5):477-82. PubMed ID: 18725383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects.
    Türkkahraman H; Sayin MO
    Eur J Orthod; 2006 Feb; 28(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 16093256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Treatment strategies for patients with hyperdivergent Class II Division 1 malocclusion: is vertical dimension affected?
    Gkantidis N; Halazonetis DJ; Alexandropoulos E; Haralabakis NB
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Sep; 140(3):346-55. PubMed ID: 21889079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A retrospective cephalometric evaluation of dental changes with activator and activator headgear combination in the treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion.
    Lall R; Kumar GA; Maheshwari A; Kumar M
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2011 Jan; 12(1):14-8. PubMed ID: 22186684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison of 2 modifications of the twin-block appliance in matched Class II samples.
    Parkin NA; McKeown HF; Sandler PJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Jun; 119(6):572-7. PubMed ID: 11395699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effects of the Herbst appliance in growing orthodontic patients with different underlying vertical patterns.
    Deen E; Woods MG
    Aust Orthod J; 2015 May; 31(1):59-68. PubMed ID: 26219148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Rapid maxillary expansion in growing patients. Hyrax versus transverse sagittal maxillary expander: a cephalometric investigation.
    Farronato G; Maspero C; Esposito L; Briguglio E; Farronato D; Giannini L
    Eur J Orthod; 2011 Apr; 33(2):185-9. PubMed ID: 21059876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [The potentiality of antero-posterior orthodontic extraoral traction: clinical and cephalometric results].
    Deblock L; Becker A
    Orthod Fr; 1992; 63 Pt 2():381-93. PubMed ID: 1341727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Correction of severe class II skeletal discrepancy with fixed twin block and high pull headgear--a case report.
    Patel D; Parekh H; Gupta B; Purl T
    Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2014; 25(4):51-5. PubMed ID: 25745711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Control of the vertical dimension in Class II correction using a cervical headgear and lower utility arch in growing patients. Part I.
    Cook AH; Sellke TA; BeGole EA
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1994 Oct; 106(4):376-88. PubMed ID: 7942653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The effect of treatment with the Bass appliance on skeletal Class II malocclusions: a cephalometric investigation.
    Cura N; Saraç M
    Eur J Orthod; 1997 Dec; 19(6):691-702. PubMed ID: 9458602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. [Control of vertical dimension in the treatment of Class II malocclusion using a combined activator and extraoral traction appliance].
    Chabre C
    Orthod Fr; 1989; 60 Pt 2():617-33. PubMed ID: 2490243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and cervical headgear appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment.
    de Oliveira JN; Rodrigues de Almeida R; Rodrigues de Almeida M; de Oliveira JN
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Jul; 132(1):54-62. PubMed ID: 17628251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Treatment effects produced by preorthodontic trainer appliance in patients with class II division I malocclusion.
    Das UM; Reddy D
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2010; 28(1):30-3. PubMed ID: 20215669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Midpalatal implants vs headgear for orthodontic anchorage--a randomized clinical trial: cephalometric results.
    Benson PE; Tinsley D; O'Dwyer JJ; Majumdar A; Doyle P; Sandler PJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Nov; 132(5):606-15. PubMed ID: 18005834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.