484 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28365810)
21. Effects of headgear Herbst and mandibular step-by-step advancement versus conventional Herbst appliance and maximal jumping of the mandible.
Du X; Hägg U; Rabie AB
Eur J Orthod; 2002 Apr; 24(2):167-74. PubMed ID: 12001553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Skeletal and dental outcomes of a new magnetic functional appliance, the Sydney Magnoglide, in Class II correction.
Phelan A; Tarraf NE; Taylor P; Hönscheid R; Drescher D; Baccetti T; Darendeliler MA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Jun; 141(6):759-72. PubMed ID: 22640678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Treatment effects of skeletally anchored Forsus FRD EZ and Herbst appliances: A retrospective clinical study.
Celikoglu M; Buyuk SK; Ekizer A; Unal T
Angle Orthod; 2016 Mar; 86(2):306-14. PubMed ID: 26258899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Is significant mandibular advancement possible after the peak of puberty? Dento-osseous palatal expansion and the STM4 technique (Skeletal Therapy Manni Telescopic Herbst 4 miniscrews): A case report.
Manni A; Boggio A; Gastaldi G; Cozzani M
Int Orthod; 2024 Jun; 22(2):100868. PubMed ID: 38471383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation.
Pancherz H
Am J Orthod; 1982 Aug; 82(2):104-13. PubMed ID: 6961781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Skeletal effects in class II treatment with the functional mandibular advancer (FMA)?
Kinzinger G; Diedrich P
J Orofac Orthop; 2005 Nov; 66(6):469-90. PubMed ID: 16331547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Mode of correction is related to treatment timing in Class II patients treated with the mandibular advancement locking unit (MALU) appliance.
Candir M; Kerosuo H
Angle Orthod; 2017 May; 87(3):363-370. PubMed ID: 28121165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. Development of a new fixed functional appliance for treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion first report.
Kinzinger G; Ostheimer J; Förster F; Kwandt PB; Reul H; Diedrich P
J Orofac Orthop; 2002 Sep; 63(5):384-99. PubMed ID: 12297967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Immediate post-treatment crowned Herbst effects in growing patients.
Latkauskiene D; Jakobsone G
Stomatologija; 2012; 14(3):89-92. PubMed ID: 23128491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Herbst appliance in the mixed dentition.
de Almeida MR; Henriques JF; de Almeida RR; Weber U; McNamara JA
Angle Orthod; 2005 Jul; 75(4):540-7. PubMed ID: 16097222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Class II treatment by extraction of maxillary first molars or Herbst appliance: dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects in comparison.
Booij JW; Goeke J; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Ruf S
J Orofac Orthop; 2013 Jan; 74(1):52-63. PubMed ID: 23299649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Three-dimensional comparison of the skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of the Herbst and Pendulum appliances followed by fixed appliances: A CBCT study.
Taylor KL; Evangelista K; Muniz L; Ruellas ACO; Valladares-Neto J; McNamara J; Franchi L; Kim-Berman H; Cevidanes LHS
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2020 Feb; 23(1):72-81. PubMed ID: 31514261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Angle Class II correction with MARA appliance.
Chiqueto K; Henriques JF; Barros SE; Janson G
Dental Press J Orthod; 2013; 18(1):35-44. PubMed ID: 23876947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Skeletal and dentoalveolar contributions during Class II correction with Forsus™ FRD appliances : Quantitative evaluation.
George AS; Ganapati Durgekar S
J Orofac Orthop; 2022 Mar; 83(2):87-98. PubMed ID: 33961059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
