297 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23323608)
1. Efficacy of the Sander bite-jumping appliance in growing patients with mandibular retrusion: a randomized controlled trial.
Martina R; Cioffi I; Galeotti A; Tagliaferri R; Cimino R; Michelotti A; Valletta R; Farella M; Paduano S
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2013 May; 16(2):116-26. PubMed ID: 23323608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Dentoskeletal effects of the Bite-Jumping Appliance and the Twin-Block Appliance in the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial.
Burhan AS; Nawaya FR
Eur J Orthod; 2015 Jun; 37(3):330-7. PubMed ID: 25296729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Stability of Class II treatment with an edgewise crowned Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition: Skeletal and dental changes.
Wigal TG; Dischinger T; Martin C; Razmus T; Gunel E; Ngan P
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Aug; 140(2):210-23. PubMed ID: 21803259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Long-term comparison of treatment outcome and stability of Class II patients treated with functional appliances versus bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy.
Berger JL; Pangrazio-Kulbersh V; George C; Kaczynski R
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Apr; 127(4):451-64; quiz 516-7. PubMed ID: 15821690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini-block appliances: Part 1. Hard tissue changes.
Gill DS; Lee RT
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Apr; 127(4):465-72; quiz 517. PubMed ID: 15821691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Skeletal and dental outcomes of a new magnetic functional appliance, the Sydney Magnoglide, in Class II correction.
Phelan A; Tarraf NE; Taylor P; Hönscheid R; Drescher D; Baccetti T; Darendeliler MA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Jun; 141(6):759-72. PubMed ID: 22640678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and the activator-headgear combination appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment.
Lima KJ; Henriques JF; Janson G; Pereira SC; Neves LS; Cançado RH
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 May; 143(5):684-94. PubMed ID: 23631970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Treatment effects of a twin-force bite corrector versus an activator in comparison with an untreated Class II sample: a preliminary report.
Dalci O; Altug AT; Memikoglu UT
Aust Orthod J; 2014 May; 30(1):45-53. PubMed ID: 24968645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study.
Jena AK; Duggal R; Parkash H
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Nov; 130(5):594-602. PubMed ID: 17110256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.
Thiruvenkatachari B; Sandler J; Murray A; Walsh T; O'Brien K
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Aug; 138(2):144.e1-9; discussion 144-5. PubMed ID: 20691354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy.
Baccetti T; Franchi L; Toth LR; McNamara JA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Aug; 118(2):159-70. PubMed ID: 10935956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Short-term skeletal and dental effects of the Xbow appliance as measured on lateral cephalograms.
Flores-Mir C; Barnett G; Higgins DW; Heo G; Major PW
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Dec; 136(6):822-32. PubMed ID: 19962605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Long-term treatment effects of the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel.
Freeman DC; McNamara JA; Baccetti T; Franchi L; Fränkel C
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 May; 135(5):570.e1-6; discussion 570-1. PubMed ID: 19409337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy.
Baysal A; Uysal T
Eur J Orthod; 2014 Apr; 36(2):164-72. PubMed ID: 24663007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion in adults: stepwise vs single-step advancement with the Herbst appliance.
Purkayastha SK; Rabie AB; Wong R
World J Orthod; 2008; 9(3):233-43. PubMed ID: 18834006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comparison of the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects caused by herbst and mandibular protraction appliances in the treatment of mandibular Class II malocclusions.
Alves PF; Oliveira AG
World J Orthod; 2008; 9(1):e1-19. PubMed ID: 19641760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Treatment effects of the mandibular anterior repositioning appliance on patients with Class II malocclusion.
Pangrazio-Kulbersh V; Berger JL; Chermak DS; Kaczynski R; Simon ES; Haerian A
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Mar; 123(3):286-95. PubMed ID: 12637901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
