165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25316493)
1. Effects of cervical headgear and pendulum appliance on vertical dimension in growing subjects: a retrospective controlled clinical trial.
Lione R; Franchi L; Laganà G; Cozza P
Eur J Orthod; 2015 Jun; 37(3):338-44. PubMed ID: 25316493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Treating Class II malocclusion in children. Vertical skeletal effects of high-pull or low-pull headgear during comprehensive orthodontic treatment and retention.
Antonarakis GS; Kiliaridis S
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2015 May; 18(2):86-95. PubMed ID: 25545335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparative evaluation of molar distalization therapy with erupted second molar: Segmented versus Quad Pendulum appliance.
Caprioglio A; Cozzani M; Fontana M
Prog Orthod; 2014; 15(1):49. PubMed ID: 25139288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Molar distalization with a pendulum appliance K-loop combination.
Acar AG; Gürsoy S; Dinçer M
Eur J Orthod; 2010 Aug; 32(4):459-65. PubMed ID: 20231213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Short-term effects of a modified Alt-RAMEC protocol for early treatment of Class III malocclusion: a controlled study.
Masucci C; Franchi L; Giuntini V; Defraia E
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2014 Nov; 17(4):259-69. PubMed ID: 25041370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Dentoskeletal effects of the Bite-Jumping Appliance and the Twin-Block Appliance in the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial.
Burhan AS; Nawaya FR
Eur J Orthod; 2015 Jun; 37(3):330-7. PubMed ID: 25296729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Treatment and posttreatment effects induced by the Forsus appliance: A controlled clinical study.
Cacciatore G; Ghislanzoni LT; Alvetro L; Giuntini V; Franchi L
Angle Orthod; 2014 Nov; 84(6):1010-7. PubMed ID: 24665887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of the effects produced by headgear and pendulum appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment.
Angelieri F; de Almeida RR; Janson G; Castanha Henriques JF; Pinzan A
Eur J Orthod; 2008 Dec; 30(6):572-9. PubMed ID: 19054813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Is bodily advancement of the lower incisors possible?
Strahm C; De Sousa AP; Grobéty D; Mavropoulos A; Kiliaridis S
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Aug; 31(4):425-31. PubMed ID: 19395370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Skeletal versus conventional intraoral anchorage for the treatment of class II malocclusion: dentoalveolar and skeletal effects.
Mariani L; Maino G; Caprioglio A
Prog Orthod; 2014; 15(1):43. PubMed ID: 25138818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Longitudinal study of anteroposterior and vertical maxillary changes in skeletal class II patients treated with Kloehn cervical headgear.
Lima Filho RM; Lima AL; de Oliveira Ruellas AC
Angle Orthod; 2003 Apr; 73(2):187-93. PubMed ID: 12725376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Mechanisms of Class II correction induced by the crown Herbst appliance as a single-phase Class II therapy: 1 year follow-up.
Jakobsone G; Latkauskiene D; McNamara JA
Prog Orthod; 2013 Sep; 14():27. PubMed ID: 24326090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
