BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

457 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]
    of 23.