206 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24913740)
1. Corticotomy-assisted maxillary protraction with skeletal anchorage and Class III elastics.
Yilmaz HN; Garip H; Satilmis T; Kucukkeles N
Angle Orthod; 2015 Jan; 85(1):48-57. PubMed ID: 24913740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Long-term results of surgically assisted maxillary protraction vs regular facemask.
Nevzatoğlu S; Küçükkeleş N
Angle Orthod; 2014 Nov; 84(6):1002-9. PubMed ID: 24654941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Dentofacial effects of skeletal anchored treatment modalities for the correction of maxillary retrognathia.
Sar C; Sahinoğlu Z; Özçirpici AA; Uçkan S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Jan; 145(1):41-54. PubMed ID: 24373654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage.
Sar C; Arman-Özçırpıcı A; Uçkan S; Yazıcı AC
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 May; 139(5):636-49. PubMed ID: 21536207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Long-term results of surgically-assisted maxillary protraction.
Nevzatoğlu S; Küçükkeleş N
Aust Orthod J; 2014 May; 30(1):19-31. PubMed ID: 24968642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The efficacy of Hybrid Hyrax-Mentoplate combination in early Class III treatment: a novel approach and pilot study.
Katyal V; Wilmes B; Nienkemper M; Darendeliler MA; Sampson W; Drescher D
Aust Orthod J; 2016 May; 32(1):88-96. PubMed ID: 27468596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment.
Ngan P; Wilmes B; Drescher D; Martin C; Weaver B; Gunel E
Prog Orthod; 2015; 16():26. PubMed ID: 26303311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients.
De Clerck H; Cevidanes L; Baccetti T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Nov; 138(5):577-81. PubMed ID: 21055597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Maxillary protraction using a hybrid hyrax-facemask combination.
Nienkemper M; Wilmes B; Pauls A; Drescher D
Prog Orthod; 2013 May; 14(1):5. PubMed ID: 24325812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The Hybrid Hyrax Distalizer, a new all-in-one appliance for rapid palatal expansion, early class III treatment and upper molar distalization.
Wilmes B; Ludwig B; Katyal V; Nienkemper M; Rein A; Drescher D
J Orthod; 2014 Sep; 41 Suppl 1():S47-53. PubMed ID: 25138366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Long-term stability of rapid maxillary expansion combined with chincup protraction followed by fixed appliances.
Palma JC; Tejedor-Sanz N; Oteo MD; Alarcón JA
Angle Orthod; 2015 Mar; 85(2):270-7. PubMed ID: 24892796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A novel method for treatment of Class III malocclusion in growing patients.
Al-Mozany SA; Dalci O; Almuzian M; Gonzalez C; Tarraf NE; Ali Darendeliler M
Prog Orthod; 2017 Dec; 18(1):40. PubMed ID: 29226300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Class III malocclusion treated with a 3D-printed hybrid hyrax distalizer combined with mentoplate using Alt-RAMEC protocol: A case report.
Kathem SJ; Matras RC; Abbas SOM
J Orthod; 2024 Jun; 51(2):183-191. PubMed ID: 37392009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary changes associated with facemask and rapid maxillary expansion compared with bone anchored maxillary protraction.
Hino CT; Cevidanes LH; Nguyen TT; De Clerck HJ; Franchi L; McNamara JA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Nov; 144(5):705-14. PubMed ID: 24182587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Morphometric analysis of treatment effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction in growing Class III patients.
Baccetti T; De Clerck HJ; Cevidanes LH; Franchi L
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Apr; 33(2):121-5. PubMed ID: 21187527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effects of facemask treatment anchored with miniplates after alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions; a pilot study.
Kaya D; Kocadereli I; Kan B; Tasar F
Angle Orthod; 2011 Jul; 81(4):639-46. PubMed ID: 21299407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of the change in inferior sclera exposure after maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage.
Kale B; Buyukcavus MH; Esenlik E
Niger J Clin Pract; 2018 Jul; 21(7):854-858. PubMed ID: 29984715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Maxillary protraction with miniplates providing skeletal anchorage in a growing Class III patient.
Cha BK; Choi DS; Ngan P; Jost-Brinkmann PG; Kim SM; Jang IS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Jan; 139(1):99-112. PubMed ID: 21195283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The efficacy of maxillary protraction protocols with the micro-implant-assisted rapid palatal expander (MARPE) and the novel N2 mini-implant-a finite element study.
Moon W; Wu KW; MacGinnis M; Sung J; Chu H; Youssef G; Machado A
Prog Orthod; 2015; 16():16. PubMed ID: 26061987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Bimaxillary surgery in Class III malocclusion: soft and hard tissue changes.
Aydil B; Özer N; Marşan G
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2013 Apr; 41(3):254-7. PubMed ID: 23182267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
