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.
199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24825829)
1. Facial-profile attractiveness changes in adult patients treated with the Herbst appliance. von Bremen J; Erbe C; Pancherz H; Ruf S J Orofac Orthop; 2014 May; 75(3):167-74. PubMed ID: 24825829 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Esthetic perception of facial profile changes in Class II patients treated with Herbst or Forsus appliances. Moresca AHK; de Moraes ND; Topolski F; Flores-Mir C; Moro A; Moresca RC; Correr GM Angle Orthod; 2020 Jul; 90(4):571-577. PubMed ID: 33378491 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Soft tissue profile changes after Functional Mandibular Advancer or Herbst appliance treatment in class II patients. Hourfar J; Lisson JA; Gross U; Frye L; Kinzinger GSM Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Mar; 22(2):971-980. PubMed ID: 28721528 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Perception of changes in soft-tissue profile after Herbst appliance treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Rego MV; Martinez EF; Coelho RM; Leal LM; Thiesen G Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2017 Mar; 151(3):559-564. PubMed ID: 28257740 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Esthetic perception of facial profile changes after extraction and nonextraction Class II treatment. Rocha AD; Casteluci CEVF; Ferreira FPC; Conti AC; Almeida MR; Almeida-Pedrin RR Braz Oral Res; 2020; 34():e003. PubMed ID: 32022222 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Changes in soft tissue profile following the treatment using a Herbst appliance--a photographic analysis. Nedeljković N; Cubrilo D; Hadzi-Mihailović M Vojnosanit Pregl; 2014 Jan; 71(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 24516984 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. A retrospective cephalometric investigation of two fixed functional orthodontic appliances in class II treatment: Functional Mandibular Advancer vs. Herbst appliance. Kinzinger GSM; Lisson JA; Frye L; Gross U; Hourfar J Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Jan; 22(1):293-304. PubMed ID: 28365810 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Changes in the craniofacial structures and esthetic perceptions of soft-tissue profile alterations after distalization and Herbst appliance treatment. Irezli EC; Baysal A Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2021 Mar; 159(3):292-304. PubMed ID: 33487502 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Soft tissue effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy. Baysal A; Uysal T Eur J Orthod; 2013 Feb; 35(1):71-81. PubMed ID: 21357655 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Orthognathic surgery and dentofacial orthopedics in adult Class II Division 1 treatment: mandibular sagittal split osteotomy versus Herbst appliance. Ruf S; Pancherz H Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2004 Aug; 126(2):140-52; quiz 254-5. PubMed ID: 15316468 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Facial attractiveness of skeletal Class II patients before and after mandibular advancement surgery as perceived by people with different backgrounds. Ng D; De Silva RK; Smit R; De Silva H; Farella M Eur J Orthod; 2013 Aug; 35(4):515-20. PubMed ID: 22573907 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mandibular incisor position changes in relation to amount of bite jumping during Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment: a radiographic-cephalometric study. Martin J; Pancherz H Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):44-51. PubMed ID: 19577147 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbst appliance. Sloss EA; Southard KA; Qian F; Stock SE; Mann KR; Meyer DL; Southard TE Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Apr; 133(4):509-14. PubMed ID: 18405814 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Facial esthetic outcome of functional followed by fixed orthodontic treatment of class II division 1 patients. Zouloumi ME; Tsiouli K; Psomiadis S; Kolokitha OE; Topouzelis N; Gkantidis N Prog Orthod; 2019 Nov; 20(1):42. PubMed ID: 31761963 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effectiveness of incremental vs maximum bite advancement during Herbst appliance therapy in late adolescent and young adult patients. Amuk NG; Baysal A; Coskun R; Kurt G Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2019 Jan; 155(1):48-56. PubMed ID: 30591165 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Herbst appliance therapy and temporomandibular joint disc position: a prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study. Aidar LA; Abrahão M; Yamashita HK; Dominguez GC Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Apr; 129(4):486-96. PubMed ID: 16627174 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Profile changes in orthodontic patients treated with mandibular advancement surgery. Tsang ST; McFadden LR; Wiltshire WA; Pershad N; Baker AB Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jan; 135(1):66-72. PubMed ID: 19121503 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]