1021 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25545335)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.
Yao CC; Lai EH; Chang JZ; Chen I; Chen YJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Nov; 134(5):615-24. PubMed ID: 18984393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Skeletal and dental components of Class II correction with the bionator and removable headgear splint appliances.
Martins RP; da Rosa Martins JC; Martins LP; Buschang PH
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Dec; 134(6):732-41. PubMed ID: 19061799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Treatment and posttreatment effects of a facial mask combined with a bite-block appliance in Class III malocclusion.
Cozza P; Baccetti T; Mucedero M; Pavoni C; Franchi L
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Sep; 138(3):300-10. PubMed ID: 20816299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Initial and late treatment effects of headgear-Herbst appliance with mandibular step-by-step advancement.
Hägg U; Du X; Rabie AB
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2002 Nov; 122(5):477-85. PubMed ID: 12439475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Class II Division 1 Malocclusion Treated with a Cervical-Pull Headgear: A Case Report.
Shah AH
Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2016; 27(1):25-8. PubMed ID: 27319037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Correction of severe class II skeletal discrepancy with fixed twin block and high pull headgear--a case report.
Patel D; Parekh H; Gupta B; Purl T
Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2014; 25(4):51-5. PubMed ID: 25745711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Differences of treatment outcomes between self-ligating brackets with microimplant and headgear anchorages in adults with bimaxillary protrusion.
Chen M; Li ZM; Liu X; Cai B; Wang DW; Feng ZC
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Apr; 147(4):465-71. PubMed ID: 25836006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Two-phase treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion with the combination of the twin-block appliance and high-pull headgear.
Lv Y; Yan B; Wang L
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Aug; 142(2):246-55. PubMed ID: 22858335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effects of the pendulum appliance, cervical headgear, and 2 premolar extractions followed by fixed appliances in patients with Class II malocclusion.
de Almeida-Pedrin RR; Henriques JF; de Almeida RR; de Almeida MR; McNamara JA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Dec; 136(6):833-42. PubMed ID: 19962606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes concurrent to use of Twin Block appliance in class II division I cases with a deficient mandible: a cephalometric study.
Sharma AK; Sachdev V; Singla A; Kirtaniya BC
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2012; 30(3):218-26. PubMed ID: 23263425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Differences between sliding mechanics with implant anchorage and straight-pull headgear and intermaxillary elastics in adults with bimaxillary protrusion.
Koyama I; Iino S; Abe Y; Takano-Yamamoto T; Miyawaki S
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Apr; 33(2):126-31. PubMed ID: 21059875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
