372 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28203569)
1. Comparison of Activator-Headgear and Twin Block Treatment Approaches in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion.
Spalj S; Mroz Tranesen K; Birkeland K; Katic V; Pavlic A; Vandevska-Radunovic V
Biomed Res Int; 2017; 2017():4861924. PubMed ID: 28203569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Mandibular changes in persons with untreated and treated Class II division 1 malocclusion.
Bishara SE
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1998 Jun; 113(6):661-73. PubMed ID: 9637570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A retrospective cephalometric evaluation of dental changes with activator and activator headgear combination in the treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion.
Lall R; Kumar GA; Maheshwari A; Kumar M
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2011 Jan; 12(1):14-8. PubMed ID: 22186684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cephalometric evaluation of the effects of the Twin Block appliance in subjects with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion amongst different cervical vertebral maturation stages.
Khoja A; Fida M; Shaikh A
Dental Press J Orthod; 2016 Jun; 21(3):73-84. PubMed ID: 27409656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Effectiveness of twin blocks and extraoral maxillary splint (Thurow) appliances for the correction of Class II relationships.
Fernandes ÁF; Brunharo IH; Quintão CC; Costa MG; de Oliveira-Costa MR
World J Orthod; 2010; 11(3):230-5. PubMed ID: 20877731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Effect of Twin-block appliance in the treatment of Class II and division I malocclusion: a cephalometric study in 12 patients].
Luo Y; Fang G
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2005 Feb; 14(1):90-3. PubMed ID: 15747025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Stability of Class II, division 1 treatment with the headgear-activator combination followed by the edgewise appliance.
Janson G; Caffer Dde C; Henriques JF; de Freitas MR; Neves LS
Angle Orthod; 2004 Oct; 74(5):594-604. PubMed ID: 15529492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and the activator-headgear combination appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment.
Lima KJ; Henriques JF; Janson G; Pereira SC; Neves LS; Cançado RH
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 May; 143(5):684-94. PubMed ID: 23631970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Treatment effects of twin-block and mandibular protraction appliance-IV in the correction of class II malocclusion.
Jena AK; Duggal R
Angle Orthod; 2010 May; 80(3):485-91. PubMed ID: 20050741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effects of activator and activator headgear treatment: comparison with untreated Class II subjects.
Türkkahraman H; Sayin MO
Eur J Orthod; 2006 Feb; 28(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 16093256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Long-term stability of Angle Class II, division 1 malocclusions with successful occlusal results at end of active treatment.
Fidler BC; Artun J; Joondeph DR; Little RM
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1995 Mar; 107(3):276-85. PubMed ID: 7879760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Skeletal and dento-alveolar changes as a result of headgear activator therapy related to different vertical growth patterns.
Dermaut LR; van den Eynde F; de Pauw G
Eur J Orthod; 1992 Apr; 14(2):140-6. PubMed ID: 1582458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
