460 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23021114)
1. Anchorage loss during canine retraction using intermittent versus continuous force distractions; a split mouth randomized clinical trial.
Mowafy MI; Zaher AR
Prog Orthod; 2012 Sep; 13(2):117-25. PubMed ID: 23021114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of canine retraction through distraction of the periodontal ligament: a clinical study.
Kumar KV; Umashankar K; Kumar DP; Kumar DP
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Nov; 13(6):799-805. PubMed ID: 23404006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Mini-screw implant or transpalatal arch-mediated anchorage reinforcement during canine retraction: a randomized clinical trial.
Sharma M; Sharma V; Khanna B
J Orthod; 2012 Jun; 39(2):102-10. PubMed ID: 22773673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Duration and anchorage management of canine retraction with bodily versus tipping mechanics.
Shpack N; Davidovitch M; Sarne O; Panayi N; Vardimon AD
Angle Orthod; 2008 Jan; 78(1):95-100. PubMed ID: 18193953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Canine retraction and anchorage loss: self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study.
da Costa Monini A; Júnior LG; Martins RP; Vianna AP
Angle Orthod; 2014 Sep; 84(5):846-52. PubMed ID: 24592906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage.
Thiruvenkatachari B; Ammayappan P; Kandaswamy R
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jul; 134(1):30-5. PubMed ID: 18617100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Hybrid Orthodontic Treatment System (HOTS).
Ikegami T; Wong RW; Hägg U; Lee W; Hibino K
World J Orthod; 2010; 11(2):168-79. PubMed ID: 20552104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Numeric simulations of en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics.
Kojima Y; Fukui H
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Dec; 138(6):702.e1-6; discussion 702-4. PubMed ID: 21130318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effective en-masse retraction design with orthodontic mini-implant anchorage: a finite element analysis.
Sung SJ; Jang GW; Chun YS; Moon YS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 May; 137(5):648-57. PubMed ID: 20451784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Canine and molar movement, rotation and tipping by NiTi coils versus elastomeric chains in first maxillary premolar extraction orthodontic adolescents: A randomized split-mouth study.
Hashemzadeh H; Soleimani M; Golbar M; Dehghani Soltani A; Mirmalek SP
Int Orthod; 2022 Mar; 20(1):100601. PubMed ID: 34866026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Periodontal ligament distraction: esthetics and occlusal stability at the 2-year follow-up.
Allgayer S; Rosenbach G; Tavares CA; Polido WD
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Apr; 143(4):535-46. PubMed ID: 23561416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Torque control in lingual orthodontics with lever arm mechanics: a case report.
Aravind M; Shivaprakash G; Ramesh GC
Orthodontics (Chic.); 2013; 14(1):e186-96. PubMed ID: 23646329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Redefining orthodontic space closure: sequential repetitive loading of the periodontal ligament--a clinical study.
Kalha AS; Kachiwala VA; Govardhan SN; McLaughlin RP; Khurshaid SZ
World J Orthod; 2010; 11(3):221-9. PubMed ID: 20877730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of space closure rates between preactivated nickel-titanium and titanium-molybdenum alloy T-loops: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Keng FY; Quick AN; Swain MV; Herbison P
Eur J Orthod; 2012 Feb; 34(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 21415288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Rate of tooth movement under heavy and light continuous orthodontic forces.
Yee JA; Türk T; Elekdağ-Türk S; Cheng LL; Darendeliler MA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Aug; 136(2):150.e1-9; discussion 150-1. PubMed ID: 19651334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of miniplates and teeth for orthodontic anchorage.
Kim S; Herring S; Wang IC; Alcalde R; Mak V; Fu I; Huang G
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Feb; 133(2):189.e1-9. PubMed ID: 18249283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparative photoelastic study of dental and skeletal anchorages in the canine retraction.
de Assis Claro CA; Chagas RV; Neves AC; da Silva-Concílio LR
Dental Press J Orthod; 2014; 19(1):100-5. PubMed ID: 24713566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparative study between conventional en-masse retraction (sliding mechanics) and en-masse retraction using orthodontic micro implant.
Basha AG; Shantaraj R; Mogegowda SB
Implant Dent; 2010 Apr; 19(2):128-36. PubMed ID: 20386216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Randomized clinical trial comparing control of maxillary anchorage with 2 retraction techniques.
Xu TM; Zhang X; Oh HS; Boyd RL; Korn EL; Baumrind S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Nov; 138(5):544.e1-9; discussion 544-5. PubMed ID: 21055588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison and measurement of the amount of anchorage loss of the molars with and without the use of implant anchorage during canine retraction.
Thiruvenkatachari B; Pavithranand A; Rajasigamani K; Kyung HM
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Apr; 129(4):551-4. PubMed ID: 16627183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
