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 *

185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25512294)

  • 21. A retrospective study comparing the loss of anchorage following the extraction of maxillary first or second premolars during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in adolescent patients.
    Haque S; Sandler J; Cobourne MT; Bassett P; DiBiase AT
    J Orthod; 2017 Dec; 44(4):268-276. PubMed ID: 28593812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage.
    Thiruvenkatachari B; Ammayappan P; Kandaswamy R
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jul; 134(1):30-5. PubMed ID: 18617100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion.
    Liu YH; Ding WH; Liu J; Li Q
    J Oral Rehabil; 2009 Sep; 36(9):687-95. PubMed ID: 19602104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A comparison of the effects of 2 mandibular anchorage systems used with a 3-dimensional bimetric maxillary distalizing arch.
    Okay C; Gülsen A; Keykubat A; Ucem TT; Yüksel S
    World J Orthod; 2006; 7(2):125-33. PubMed ID: 16779970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Application and effectiveness of the Beneslider: a device to move molars distally.
    Wilmes B; Drescher D
    World J Orthod; 2010; 11(4):331-40. PubMed ID: 21490998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial.
    Al-Sibaie S; Hajeer MY
    Eur J Orthod; 2014 Jun; 36(3):275-83. PubMed ID: 23787192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The effectiveness of pendulum, K-loop, and distal jet distalization techniques in growing children and its effects on anchor unit: A comparative study.
    Marure PS; Patil RU; Reddy S; Prakash A; Kshetrimayum N; Shukla R
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2016; 34(4):331-40. PubMed ID: 27681396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Osseointegrated implants with pendulum springs for maxillary molar distalization: a cephalometric study.
    Onçağ G; Seçkin O; Dinçer B; Arikan F
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Jan; 131(1):16-26. PubMed ID: 17208102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage.
    Lai EH; Yao CC; Chang JZ; Chen I; Chen YJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Nov; 134(5):636-45. PubMed ID: 18984395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Influence of periodontal ligament injury on initial stability for immediately loaded mini-implant].
    Wang HN; Liu DX; Wang CL; Lü T; Liu H; Wang HL
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2009 Apr; 27(2):224-6, 236. PubMed ID: 19472896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Cephalometric analysis of implant anchorage-assisted retraction of anterior teeth].
    Xu YL; Fang B; Mao LX; Feng YM; Xia YH; Lou XT; Wu Y
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2008 Feb; 17(1):20-4. PubMed ID: 18360662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Assessment of mini-implant displacement using cone beam computed tomography.
    Alves M; Baratieri C; Nojima LI
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2011 Oct; 22(10):1151-1156. PubMed ID: 21303419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Anchorage control in bioprogressive vs straight-wire treatment.
    Urias D; Mustafa FI
    Angle Orthod; 2005 Nov; 75(6):987-92. PubMed ID: 16448242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Anchorage value of surgical titanium screws in orthodontic tooth movement.
    Hedayati Z; Hashemi SM; Zamiri B; Fattahi HR
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2007 Jul; 36(7):588-92. PubMed ID: 17524619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Maxillary molar intrusion with fixed appliances and mini-implant anchorage studied in three dimensions.
    Yao CC; Lee JJ; Chen HY; Chang ZC; Chang HF; Chen YJ
    Angle Orthod; 2005 Sep; 75(5):754-60. PubMed ID: 16279822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Distal movement of maxillary molars using a lever-arm and mini-implant system.
    Lim SM; Hong RK
    Angle Orthod; 2008 Jan; 78(1):167-75. PubMed ID: 18193963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effect of the transpalatal arch during extraction treatment.
    Zablocki HL; McNamara JA; Franchi L; Baccetti T
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jun; 133(6):852-60. PubMed ID: 18538249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Comparison of treatment outcomes in patients with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion by applying different anchorage methods: a three-dimensional model study].
    Ning M; Weiran L
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2015 Feb; 33(1):63-6. PubMed ID: 25872301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Comparison of direct and indirect skeletal anchorage systems combined with 2 canine retraction techniques.
    Ozkan S; Bayram M
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Nov; 150(5):763-770. PubMed ID: 27871702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effects of molar distalization with the fast back appliance.
    Alkasaby AA; Abdelnaby YL; Hammad SM
    Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2013; 24(4):25-31. PubMed ID: 24640072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.