1447 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27871709)
1. Cephalometric study of Class II Division 1 patients treated with an extended-duration, reinforced, banded Herbst appliance followed by fixed appliances.
Tomblyn T; Rogers M; Andrews L; Martin C; Tremont T; Gunel E; Ngan P
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Nov; 150(5):818-830. PubMed ID: 27871709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Treatment effects of the edgewise Herbst appliance: a cephalometric and tomographic investigation.
VanLaecken R; Martin CA; Dischinger T; Razmus T; Ngan P
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Nov; 130(5):582-93. PubMed ID: 17110255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Stability of Class II treatment with an edgewise crowned Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition: Skeletal and dental changes.
Wigal TG; Dischinger T; Martin C; Razmus T; Gunel E; Ngan P
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Aug; 140(2):210-23. PubMed ID: 21803259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy.
Baysal A; Uysal T
Eur J Orthod; 2014 Apr; 36(2):164-72. PubMed ID: 24663007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions in early and late adulthood. a prospective cephalometric study of consecutively treated subjects.
Ruf S; Pancherz H
Eur J Orthod; 2006 Aug; 28(4):352-60. PubMed ID: 16644850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Herbst appliance combined with a completely customized lingual appliance: A retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System.
Mujagic M; Pandis N; Fleming PS; Katsaros C
Int Orthod; 2020 Dec; 18(4):732-738. PubMed ID: 32839142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Class II correction in patients treated with class II elastics and with fixed functional appliances: a comparative study.
Nelson B; Hansen K; Hägg U
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Aug; 118(2):142-9. PubMed ID: 10935954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Dentoskeletal effects during Herbst-Multibracket appliance treatment: a comparison of lingual and labial approaches.
Bock NC; Ruf S; Wiechmann D; Jilek T
Eur J Orthod; 2016 Oct; 38(5):470-7. PubMed ID: 26378084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A retrospective cephalometric investigation of two fixed functional orthodontic appliances in class II treatment: Functional Mandibular Advancer vs. Herbst appliance.
Kinzinger GSM; Lisson JA; Frye L; Gross U; Hourfar J
Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Jan; 22(1):293-304. PubMed ID: 28365810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison of skeletal and dental changes in patients with a Class II relationship treated with clear aligner mandibular advancement and Herbst appliance followed by comprehensive orthodontic treatment.
Hosseini HR; Ngan P; Tai SK; Andrews LJ; Xiang J
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2024 Feb; 165(2):205-219. PubMed ID: 37831020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Dental changes induced by a modified Herbst appliance followed by fixed appliances: A digital dental model analysis.
Marchi PGB; Muñoz JFM; de Arruda Aidar LA; Marchi LC; Dominguez GC; Raveli DB
J World Fed Orthod; 2023 Jun; 12(3):131-137. PubMed ID: 37208204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Dental and skeletal changes in patients with mandibular retrognathism following treatment with Herbst and pre-adjusted fixed appliance.
de Abreu Vigorito F; Dominguez GC; de Arruda Aidar LA
Dental Press J Orthod; 2014; 19(1):46-54. PubMed ID: 24713559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effectiveness of the Herbst appliance for patients with Class II malocclusion: a meta-analysis.
Yang X; Zhu Y; Long H; Zhou Y; Jian F; Ye N; Gao M; Lai W
Eur J Orthod; 2016 Jun; 38(3):324-33. PubMed ID: 26306822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Herbst appliance with skeletal anchorage versus dental anchorage in adolescents with Class II malocclusion: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Batista KBDSL; Lima T; Palomares N; Carvalho FA; Quintão C; Miguel JAM; Lin YL; Su TL; O'Brien K
Trials; 2017 Nov; 18(1):564. PubMed ID: 29178932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Treatment effects of a fixed intermaxillary device to correct class II malocclusions in growing patients.
Heinrichs DA; Shammaa I; Martin C; Razmus T; Gunel E; Ngan P
Prog Orthod; 2014; 15(1):45. PubMed ID: 25138988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Class II malocclusion treatment with the Herbst appliance in patients after the growth peak.
Alvares JC; Cançado RH; Valarelli FP; de Freitas KM; Angheben CZ
Dental Press J Orthod; 2013; 18(5):38-45. PubMed ID: 24352386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Herbst plus Lingual versus Herbst plus Labial: a comparison of occlusal outcome and gingival health.
Bock NC; Ruf S; Wiechmann D; Jilek T
Eur J Orthod; 2016 Oct; 38(5):478-84. PubMed ID: 27141935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Dentaoalveolar changes in young adult patients with class II/1 malocclusion treated with the herbst appliance and an activator].
Nedeljković N; Sćepan I; Glisić B; Marković E
Vojnosanit Pregl; 2010 Feb; 67(2):170-5. PubMed ID: 20337101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
