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 *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23597214)

  • 21. Treatment effects of R-appliance and anterior inclined bite plate in class II, division I malocclusion.
    Showkatbakhsh R; Meybodi SE; Jamilian A; Meybodi SA; Meybodi EM
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2011; 19(6):634-8. PubMed ID: 22230999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. An assessment of late fixed functional treatment and the stability of Forsus appliance effects.
    Gao W; Li X; Bai Y
    Aust Orthod J; 2014 May; 30(1):2-10. PubMed ID: 24968640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Changes in mandibular position in treated Class II division 2 malocclusions in growing and non-growing subjects.
    AL-Nimri K; Abo-Zomor M; Alomari S
    Aust Orthod J; 2016 May; 32(1):73-81. PubMed ID: 27468594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Mechanism of Class II correction in prepubertal and postpubertal patients with Twin Force Bite Corrector.
    Chhibber A; Upadhyay M; Uribe F; Nanda R
    Angle Orthod; 2013 Jul; 83(4):718-27. PubMed ID: 23194014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Is bodily advancement of the lower incisors possible?
    Strahm C; De Sousa AP; Grobéty D; Mavropoulos A; Kiliaridis S
    Eur J Orthod; 2009 Aug; 31(4):425-31. PubMed ID: 19395370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A Pilot Study on the Dentoalveolar and Skeletal Effects of Two Functional Appliances in Class II, Division 1 Growing Children.
    Chen H; Yagi K; Almeida FR; Pliska BT; Lowe AA
    Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2015; 26(2):15-20. PubMed ID: 26349284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Molar heights and incisor inclinations in adults with Class II and Class III skeletal open-bite malocclusions.
    Arriola-Guillén LE; Flores-Mir C
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Mar; 145(3):325-32. PubMed ID: 24582024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Predictive value of molar bite force on Class II functional appliance treatment outcomes.
    Antonarakis GS; Kjellberg H; Kiliaridis S
    Eur J Orthod; 2012 Apr; 34(2):244-9. PubMed ID: 21411476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Cephalometric appraisal of Class II treatment effects after functional and fixed appliances: a retrospective study.
    Zelderloo A; Cadenas de Llano-Pérula M; Verdonck A; Fieuws S; Willems G
    Eur J Orthod; 2017 Jun; 39(3):334-341. PubMed ID: 27742730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The effects of facemask and reverse chin cup on maxillary deficient patients.
    Showkatbakhsh R; Jamilian A; Ghassemi M; Ghassemi A; Taban T; Imani Z
    J Orthod; 2012 Jun; 39(2):95-101. PubMed ID: 22773672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Cephalometric study to test the reliability of anteroposterior skeletal discrepancy indicators using the twin block appliance.
    Trivedi R; Bhattacharya A; Mehta F; Patel D; Parekh H; Gandhi V
    Prog Orthod; 2015 Feb; 16():3. PubMed ID: 25769138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Stepwise advancement Herbst appliance versus mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. Treatment effects and long-term stability of adult Class II patients.
    Chaiyongsirisern A; Rabie AB; Wong RW
    Angle Orthod; 2009 Nov; 79(6):1084-94. PubMed ID: 19852598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Cephalometric analysis of changes produced by a modified Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion.
    Sidhu MS; Kharbanda OP; Sidhu SS
    Br J Orthod; 1995 Feb; 22(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 7786859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effectiveness of twin blocks and extraoral maxillary splint (Thurow) appliances for the correction of Class II relationships.
    Fernandes ÁF; Brunharo IH; Quintão CC; Costa MG; de Oliveira-Costa MR
    World J Orthod; 2010; 11(3):230-5. PubMed ID: 20877731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Mini-implants and the efficiency of Herbst treatment: a preliminary study.
    Luzi C; Luzi V; Melsen B
    Prog Orthod; 2013 Jul; 14():21. PubMed ID: 24325903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparison of double-plate appliance and facemask therapy in treating Class III malocclusions.
    Ucem TT; Ucuncü N; Yüksel S
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2004 Dec; 126(6):672-9. PubMed ID: 15592214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Post-treatment evaluation of a magnetic activator device in Class II high-angle malocclusions.
    Yüksel S; Kaygisiz E; Ulusoy C; Keykubat A
    Eur J Orthod; 2010 Aug; 32(4):425-9. PubMed ID: 20053717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Late adult skeletofacial growth after adolescent Herbst therapy: a 32-year longitudinal follow-up study.
    Pancherz H; Bjerklin K; Hashemi K
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Jan; 147(1):19-28. PubMed ID: 25533068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.