339 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24763171)
21. Early orthodontic treatment for Class II malocclusion reduces the chance of incisal trauma: Results of a Cochrane systematic review.
Thiruvenkatachari B; Harrison J; Worthington H; O'Brien K
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Jul; 148(1):47-59. PubMed ID: 26124027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. FIXED OR REMOVABLE APPLIANCE FOR EARLY ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT OF FUNCTIONAL ANTERIOR CROSSBITE.
Wiedel AP
Swed Dent J Suppl; 2015; (238):10-72. PubMed ID: 26939312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Does observational study on the effectiveness of the Twin Blocks overestimate or underestimate the results? A comparative analysis of retrospective samples versus randomized controlled trial.
Mehyar L; Sandler J; Thiruvenkatachari B
J World Fed Orthod; 2021 Jun; 10(2):43-48. PubMed ID: 33893064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Removable functional appliances effective in patients with Class II malocclusions.
Madurantakam P
Evid Based Dent; 2016 Mar; 17(1):27-8. PubMed ID: 27012576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Orthodontic retention to have and to hold.
Kalha AS
Evid Based Dent; 2016 Dec; 17(4):105-106. PubMed ID: 27980334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Reflection on patients' experience with orthodontic appliances wear and its impact on oral health related quality of life: observational comparative study.
Abutaleb MA; Latief MHAE; Montasser MA
BMC Oral Health; 2023 Jul; 23(1):502. PubMed ID: 37468940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparison of Twin Block appliance and Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusion among children: a meta-analysis.
Xu F; Fang Y; Sui X; Yao Y
BMC Oral Health; 2024 Feb; 24(1):278. PubMed ID: 38409017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Cephalometric study of Class II Division 1 patients treated with an extended-duration, reinforced, banded Herbst appliance followed by fixed appliances.
Tomblyn T; Rogers M; Andrews L; Martin C; Tremont T; Gunel E; Ngan P
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Nov; 150(5):818-830. PubMed ID: 27871709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Herbst appliance with skeletal anchorage versus dental anchorage in adolescents with Class II malocclusion: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Batista KBDSL; Lima T; Palomares N; Carvalho FA; Quintão C; Miguel JAM; Lin YL; Su TL; O'Brien K
Trials; 2017 Nov; 18(1):564. PubMed ID: 29178932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Fixed or removable function appliances for Class II malocclusions.
Madurantakam P
Evid Based Dent; 2016 Jun; 17(2):52-3. PubMed ID: 27339240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A comparison of Twin Block, Andresen and removable appliances in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
Trenouth MJ
Funct Orthod; 1992; 9(4):26-31. PubMed ID: 1452055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Comparison of the dentoskeletal and soft tissue changes with the cervical headgear and Jones Jig followed by fixed appliances in Class II malocclusion patients: A retrospective study.
Fontes FPH; Bellini-Pereira SA; Aliaga-Del-Castillo A; Patel MP; Freitas MR; Henriques JFC; Janson G
Int Orthod; 2020 Sep; 18(3):424-435. PubMed ID: 32278665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.
Littlewood SJ; Millett DT; Doubleday B; Bearn DR; Worthington HV
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2004; (1):CD002283. PubMed ID: 14973985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces.
Littlewood SJ; Millett DT; Doubleday B; Bearn DR; Worthington HV
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2006 Jan; (1):CD002283. PubMed ID: 16437443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Quad-helix appliances may be more successful than removable expansion plates at correcting posterior crossbites.
O'Neill J
Evid Based Dent; 2015 Mar; 16(1):25-6. PubMed ID: 25909939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial.
O'Brien K; Wright J; Conboy F; Sanjie Y; Mandall N; Chadwick S; Connolly I; Cook P; Birnie D; Hammond M; Harradine N; Lewis D; McDade C; Mitchell L; Murray A; O'Neill J; Read M; Robinson S; Roberts-Harry D; Sandler J; Shaw I
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Aug; 124(2):128-37. PubMed ID: 12923506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment.
Dolce C; McGorray SP; Brazeau L; King GJ; Wheeler TT
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):481-9. PubMed ID: 17920501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The modified twin block appliance in the treatment of Class II division 2 malocclusions.
Dyer FM; McKeown HF; Sandler PJ
J Orthod; 2001 Dec; 28(4):271-80. PubMed ID: 11709592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites.
Harrison JE; Ashby D
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2001; (1):CD000979. PubMed ID: 11279699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Treatment effects of removable functional appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Koretsi V; Zymperdikas VF; Papageorgiou SN; Papadopoulos MA
Eur J Orthod; 2015 Aug; 37(4):418-34. PubMed ID: 25398303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
