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 *

221 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27508935)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Young patients' attitudes toward removable appliance wear times, wear-time instructions and electronic wear-time measurements--results of a questionnaire study.
    Schott TC; Göz G
    J Orofac Orthop; 2010 Mar; 71(2):108-16. PubMed ID: 20354837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Quantifying patient adherence during active orthodontic treatment with removable appliances using microelectronic wear-time documentation.
    Schäfer K; Ludwig B; Meyer-Gutknecht H; Schott TC
    Eur J Orthod; 2015 Feb; 37(1):73-80. PubMed ID: 24993614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Objectively measured compliance during early orthodontic treatment: Do treatment needs have an impact?
    Sarul M; Kawala B; Kozanecka A; Łyczek J; Antoszewska-Smith J
    Adv Clin Exp Med; 2017; 26(1):83-87. PubMed ID: 28397437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Patient compliance with Twin Block appliance during treatment of Class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial on two check-up prescriptions.
    Frilund E; Sonesson M; Magnusson A
    Eur J Orthod; 2023 Mar; 45(2):142-149. PubMed ID: 35968672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Effects of wear time recording on the patient's compliance.
    Pauls A; Nienkemper M; Panayotidis A; Wilmes B; Drescher D
    Angle Orthod; 2013 Nov; 83(6):1002-8. PubMed ID: 23611166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Clinical application of the ACCO appliance. Part 1.
    Warren DW
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1992 Feb; 101(2):101-11. PubMed ID: 1739064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Factors influencing the outcome and duration of removable appliance treatment.
    John W; Kerr S; Buchanan IB; McNair FI; McColl JH
    Eur J Orthod; 1994 Jun; 16(3):181-6. PubMed ID: 8062858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Reflection on patients' experience with orthodontic appliances wear and its impact on oral health related quality of life: observational comparative study.
    Abutaleb MA; Latief MHAE; Montasser MA
    BMC Oral Health; 2023 Jul; 23(1):502. PubMed ID: 37468940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Vertical control in fully-banded orthodontic treatment.
    Pearson LE
    Angle Orthod; 1986 Jul; 56(3):205-24. PubMed ID: 3461731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Correction of skeletal class III in a growing male patient by reverse pull facemask.
    Kapoor P; Kharbanda OP
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2011; 29(3):273-7. PubMed ID: 21985889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Treatment of Skeletal Class II Malocclusion with Forsus Fatigue Resistance Appliance and Its Re-activation by Using Custom-made Crimp.
    Aileni KR; Rachala MR; Dharmender SR; Rajesh V; Sandeep B
    Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2016; 27(1):33-6. PubMed ID: 27319039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or twin-block appliances: a randomized, controlled trial.
    O'Brien K; Wright J; Conboy F; Sanjie Y; Mandall N; Chadwick S; Connolly I; Cook P; Birnie D; Hammond M; Harradine N; Lewis D; McDade C; Mitchell L; Murray A; O'Neill J; Read M; Robinson S; Roberts-Harry D; Sandler J; Shaw I
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Aug; 124(2):128-37. PubMed ID: 12923506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Class III management part II: a clinical case.
    Garcia BC
    Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2008; 19(1):23-4. PubMed ID: 18512658
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [The choice between fixed or removable orthodontic appliances].
    Lautrou A
    Rev Odontostomatol (Paris); 1979; 8(6):358-60. PubMed ID: 295134
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. One phase or two phases orthodontic treatment for Class II division 1 malocclusion?
    Veitz-Keenan A; Liu N
    Evid Based Dent; 2019 Jun; 20(2):56-57. PubMed ID: 31253968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Clinical application of the ACCO appliance. Part II.
    Warren DW
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1992 Mar; 101(3):199-209. PubMed ID: 1539545
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. New methods of construction and action of Herbst thermoformed splint appliances.
    Amoric M
    Funct Orthod; 1996; 13(1):36-40. PubMed ID: 9566170
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The impact of general self-efficacy and the severity of malocclusion on acceptance of removable orthodontic appliances in 10- to 12-year-old patients.
    Naseri N; Baherimoghadam T; Bassagh N; Hamedani S; Bassagh E; Hashemi Z
    BMC Oral Health; 2020 Nov; 20(1):344. PubMed ID: 33256680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The short-term effects of face mask and fixed tongue appliance on maxillary deficiency in growing patients--a randomized clinical trial.
    Showkatbakhsh R; Jamilian A; Behnaz M; Ghassemi M; Ghassemi A
    Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2015; 26(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 25881382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.