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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22589581)

  • 1. Evaluation of the Immediate Dentofacial Changes in Late Adolescent Patients Treated with the Forsus(™) FRD.
    Gunay EA; Arun T; Nalbantgil D
    Eur J Dent; 2011 Oct; 5(4):423-32. PubMed ID: 22589581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Skeletal and dentoalveolar contributions during Class II correction with Forsus™ FRD appliances : Quantitative evaluation.
    George AS; Ganapati Durgekar S
    J Orofac Orthop; 2022 Mar; 83(2):87-98. PubMed ID: 33961059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Skeletal, dental and soft-tissue changes induced by the Jasper Jumper appliance in late adolescence.
    Nalbantgil D; Arun T; Sayinsu K; Fulya I
    Angle Orthod; 2005 May; 75(3):426-36. PubMed ID: 15898385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A cephalometric comparative study of class II correction with Sabbagh Universal Spring (SUS(2)) and Forsus FRD appliances.
    Oztoprak MO; Nalbantgil D; Uyanlar A; Arun T
    Eur J Dent; 2012 Jul; 6(3):302-10. PubMed ID: 22904659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Dentoskeletal effects of the forsus™ fatigue resistance device in the treatment of class II malocclusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Linjawi AI; Abbassy MA
    J Orthod Sci; 2018; 7():5. PubMed ID: 29765917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of Forsus FRD EZ and Andresen activator in the treatment of class II, division 1 malocclusions.
    Bilgiç F; Başaran G; Hamamci O
    Clin Oral Investig; 2015 Mar; 19(2):445-51. PubMed ID: 24687248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cephalometric study of Class II Division 1 patients treated with an extended-duration, reinforced, banded Herbst appliance followed by fixed appliances.
    Tomblyn T; Rogers M; Andrews L; Martin C; Tremont T; Gunel E; Ngan P
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Nov; 150(5):818-830. PubMed ID: 27871709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparision of Twin-block and Forsus (FRD) functional appliance--a cephalometric study.
    Mahamad IK; Neela PK; Mascarenhas R; Husain A
    Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2012; 23(3):49-58. PubMed ID: 23094559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effects of the Forsus Fatigue-resistant Device on Skeletal Class II Malocclusion Correction.
    Li H; Ren X; Hu Y; Tan L
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2020 Jan; 21(1):105-112. PubMed ID: 32381810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Treatment outcome and long-term stability of class II correction with forsus fatigue resistant device in non-growing patients.
    Zitouni M; Acar YB
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2021 Feb; 24(1):130-136. PubMed ID: 32757406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of miniplate anchored and conventional Forsus Fatigue Resistant Devices in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.
    Turkkahraman H; Eliacik SK; Findik Y
    Angle Orthod; 2016 Nov; 86(6):1026-1032. PubMed ID: 27018848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. A comparison of the treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device and the Twin Block appliance in patients with class II malocclusions.
    Hanoun A; Al-Jewair TS; Tabbaa S; Allaymouni MA; Preston CB
    Clin Cosmet Investig Dent; 2014; 6():57-63. PubMed ID: 25114591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Class II treatment in adults: comparing camouflage orthodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthognathic surgery--a cephalometric study to evaluate various therapeutic effects.
    Kinzinger G; Frye L; Diedrich P
    J Orofac Orthop; 2009 Jan; 70(1):63-91. PubMed ID: 19194676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Treatment using the Lehman apparatus in patients with malocclusion in light of teleradiologic tests and dental arch measurements].
    Bielawska H
    Ann Acad Med Stetin; 2002; 48():195-212. PubMed ID: 14601478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Biomechanical and clinical considerations in correcting skeletal class II malocclusion with Forsus™.
    Adusumilli SP; Sudhakar P; Mummidi B; Varma DP; Arora S; Radhika A; Maheshwari A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Nov; 13(6):918-24. PubMed ID: 23404028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Forsus Nitinol Flat Spring and Jasper Jumper corrections of Class II division 1 malocclusions.
    Karacay S; Akin E; Olmez H; Gurton AU; Sagdic D
    Angle Orthod; 2006 Jul; 76(4):666-72. PubMed ID: 16808575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Treatment effects of the edgewise Herbst appliance: a cephalometric and tomographic investigation.
    VanLaecken R; Martin CA; Dischinger T; Razmus T; Ngan P
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Nov; 130(5):582-93. PubMed ID: 17110255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.