239 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24182584)
1. Long-term mandibular skeletal and dental effects of standard edgewise treatment.
Bayirli B; Vaden JL; Johnston LE
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Nov; 144(5):682-90. PubMed ID: 24182584
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of 2 comprehensive Class II treatment protocols including the bonded Herbst and headgear appliances: a double-blind study of consecutively treated patients at puberty.
Baccetti T; Franchi L; Stahl F
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jun; 135(6):698.e1-10; discussion 698-9. PubMed ID: 19524823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Midpalatal miniscrews and high-pull headgear for anteroposterior and vertical anchorage control: cephalometric comparisons of treatment changes.
Lee J; Miyazawa K; Tabuchi M; Kawaguchi M; Shibata M; Goto S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Aug; 144(2):238-50. PubMed ID: 23910205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Maxillary molar distalization or mandibular enhancement: a cephalometric comparison of comprehensive orthodontic treatment including the pendulum and the Herbst appliances.
Burkhardt DR; McNamara JA; Baccetti T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Feb; 123(2):108-16. PubMed ID: 12594414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cephalometric comparison of vertical changes between Begg and preadjusted edgewise appliances.
Chhibber A; Upadhyay M; Shetty VS; Mogra S
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Dec; 33(6):712-20. PubMed ID: 21436189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Uprighting the mandibular molars stimulates mandibular growth during treatment of class II malocclusion.
Miyajima K; Yoshimoto J; Murata S; Kanomi R
ASDC J Dent Child; 1997; 64(5):340-3. PubMed ID: 9391711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.
Yao CC; Lai EH; Chang JZ; Chen I; Chen YJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Nov; 134(5):615-24. PubMed ID: 18984393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparative efficiency of Class II malocclusion treatment with the pendulum appliance or two maxillary premolar extractions and edgewise appliances [corrected].
Pinzan-Vercelino CR; Janson G; Pinzan A; de Almeida RR; de Freitas MR; de Freitas KM
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):333-40. PubMed ID: 19395372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Class II Division 1 malocclusion with a high mandibular plane angle corrected with 2-phase treatment.
Kurosawa M; Ando K; Goto S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Feb; 135(2):241-51. PubMed ID: 19201332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Over-bite and vertical changes following first premolar extraction in high angle cases.
Ramesh GC; Pradeep MC; Kumar GA; Girish KS; Suresh BS
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Nov; 13(6):812-8. PubMed ID: 23404008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dental and skeletal components of Class II open bite treatment with a modified Thurow appliance.
Jacob HB; dos Santos-Pinto A; Buschang PH
Dental Press J Orthod; 2014; 19(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 24713556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Mandibular changes in persons with untreated and treated Class II division 1 malocclusion.
Bishara SE
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1998 Jun; 113(6):661-73. PubMed ID: 9637570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Control of the vertical dimension in Class II correction using a cervical headgear and lower utility arch in growing patients. Part I.
Cook AH; Sellke TA; BeGole EA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1994 Oct; 106(4):376-88. PubMed ID: 7942653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Successful treatment of postpeak stage patients with class II division 1 malocclusion using non-extraction and multiloop edgewise archwire therapy: a report on 16 cases.
Liu J; Zou L; Zhao ZH; Welburn N; Yang P; Tang T; Li Y
Int J Oral Sci; 2009 Dec; 1(4):207-16. PubMed ID: 20690424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Relapse of orthodontically corrected deepbites in accordance with growth pattern.
Pollard D; Akyalcin S; Wiltshire WA; Rody WJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Apr; 141(4):477-83. PubMed ID: 22464530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effects of rapid maxillary expansion in hyperdivergent patients.
Lineberger MW; McNamara JA; Baccetti T; Herberger T; Franchi L
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Jul; 142(1):60-9. PubMed ID: 22748991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of timing on the outcomes of 1-phase nonextraction therapy of Class II malocclusion.
Baccetti T; Franchi L; Kim LH
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Oct; 136(4):501-9. PubMed ID: 19815151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
