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 *

50 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2489149)

  • 1. [The changes in orthodontic area after retention period in skeletal Class 2 cases treated with activator].
    Uner O; Gültan AS
    Turk Ortodonti Derg; 1989 Apr; 2(1):81-91. PubMed ID: 2489149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. [Evaluation of results in Class II, division 1 malocclusions treated by bionator].
    Yiğit MD; Akin SZ
    Turk Ortodonti Derg; 1989 Nov; 2(2):226-37. PubMed ID: 2489153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Results of a comparative study of skeletal anomaly Class II cases after activator, headgear and combined headgear-activator treatment].
    Papadopoulos MA; Rakosi T
    Hell Stomatol Chron; 1990; 34(2):87-96. PubMed ID: 2130044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Evaluation of results in Class II: division 1 malocclusions by treated Frankel appliance].
    Yiğit MD; Akin SZ
    Turk Ortodonti Derg; 1989 Nov; 2(2):215-25. PubMed ID: 2489152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Cephalometric and tomographic evaluation of the treatment results of Class II division 1 obtained by elastic activator].
    Demirović D; Filipović M
    Bilt Udruz Ortodonata Jugosl; 1989; 22(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 2638168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Activator versus cervical headgear: superimpositional cephalometric comparison.
    Haralabakis NB; Halazonetis DJ; Sifakakis IB
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Mar; 123(3):296-305. PubMed ID: 12637902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Evaluation of the changes occurring in the vertical direction of the face in cases treated with activator + occipital headgear combination].
    Altuğ Z; Işeri H; Bayazit Z; Gögen H
    Turk Ortodonti Derg; 1989 Nov; 2(2):254-60. PubMed ID: 2489156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Cephalometric changes in Angle Class II treatment.
    Fischer-Brandies H
    Int J Orthod; 1989; 27(3-4):9-13. PubMed ID: 2592152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of arch dimension changes in 1-phase vs 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion.
    Wortham JR; Dolce C; McGorray SP; Le H; King GJ; Wheeler TT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):65-74. PubMed ID: 19577150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Effects of activator and activator + anterior high-pull headgear on the growth direction of Class 2 cases].
    Uner O; Akkaya S; Buyruk F
    Turk Ortodonti Derg; 1989 Apr; 2(1):92-102. PubMed ID: 2489150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. The integrated Herbst appliance--treatment effects in a group of adolescent males with Class II malocclusions compared with growth changes in an untreated control group.
    Hägglund P; Segerdal S; Forsberg CM
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Apr; 30(2):120-7. PubMed ID: 18216374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Class II correction in patients treated with class II elastics and with fixed functional appliances: a comparative study.
    Nelson B; Hansen K; Hägg U
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Aug; 118(2):142-9. PubMed ID: 10935954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Investigation of the vertical variations in the anterior region of Class II, division 1 malocclusions treated with different techniques].
    Hamamci O
    Turk Ortodonti Derg; 1989 Nov; 2(2):248-53. PubMed ID: 2489155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of posttreatment changes in Class II Division 1 patients after nonextraction orthodontic treatment: cephalometric and model analysis.
    Ciger S; Aksu M; Germeç D
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Feb; 127(2):219-23. PubMed ID: 15750542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [The stimulation of the rotation of the mandible with Angle Class II/1 and II/2 malocclusion with functional regulators and activators as compared to the control group].
    Stüber P
    Stomatol DDR; 1990 Mar; 40(3):112-4. PubMed ID: 2284653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.