484 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28365810)
41. Short-term skeletal and dental effects of the Xbow appliance as measured on lateral cephalograms.
Flores-Mir C; Barnett G; Higgins DW; Heo G; Major PW
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Dec; 136(6):822-32. PubMed ID: 19962605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Comparison of Twin Block appliance and Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusion among children: a meta-analysis.
Xu F; Fang Y; Sui X; Yao Y
BMC Oral Health; 2024 Feb; 24(1):278. PubMed ID: 38409017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Long-term dentoskeletal changes with the Bionator, Herbst, Twin Block, and MARA functional appliances.
Siara-Olds NJ; Pangrazio-Kulbersh V; Berger J; Bayirli B
Angle Orthod; 2010 Jan; 80(1):18-29. PubMed ID: 19852635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. The acrylic-splint Herbst appliance: a cephalometric evaluation.
Windmiller EC
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1993 Jul; 104(1):73-84. PubMed ID: 8322726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. 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]
46. Changes in the upper airway, hyoid bone and craniofacial morphology between patients treated with headgear activator and Herbst appliance: A retrospective study on lateral cephalometry.
Gu M; Savoldi F; Chan EYL; Tse CSK; Lau MTW; Wey MC; Hägg U; Yang Y
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2021 Aug; 24(3):360-369. PubMed ID: 33217159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. 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]
48. 3D assessment of mandibular skeletal effects produced by the Herbst appliance.
Fan Y; Schneider P; Matthews H; Roberts WE; Xu T; Wei R; Claes P; Clement J; Kilpatrick N; Penington A
BMC Oral Health; 2020 Apr; 20(1):117. PubMed ID: 32299402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. [Efficacy evaluation of fixed Twin-block appliance and tooth extraction in skeletal Class II malocclusion].
Gong Y; Yu Q; Li PL; Wang HH; Wei B; Shen G
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2014 Oct; 23(5):597-600. PubMed ID: 25543606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Retrospective comparison of dental and skeletal effects in the treatment of Class II malocclusion between Herbst and Xbow appliances.
Insabralde NM; Rodrigues de Almeida M; Rodrigues de Almeida-Pedrin R; Flores-Mir C; Castanha Henriques JF
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2021 Oct; 160(4):544-551. PubMed ID: 34274201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. The skeletal and dental effects of Hanks Herbst versus twin block appliances for class II correction in growing patients: a randomized clinical trial.
Pacha MM; Fleming PS; Shagmani M; Johal A
Eur J Orthod; 2024 Jan; 46(1):. PubMed ID: 37930325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions following incremental and maximum bite advancement during Herbst-rapid palatal expander appliance therapy in late adolescent and young adult patients: a randomized non-controlled prospective clinical study.
Gul Amuk N; Kurt G; Baysal A; Turker G
Eur J Orthod; 2019 May; 41(3):322-330. PubMed ID: 30892615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Post-treatment effects of the Herbst appliance. A radiographic, clinical and biometric investigation.
Hansen K
Swed Dent J Suppl; 1992; 88():1-49. PubMed ID: 1492308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. 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]
55. 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]
56. Treatment and posttreatment effects of acrylic splint Herbst appliance therapy.
Franchi L; Baccetti T; McNamara JA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Apr; 115(4):429-38. PubMed ID: 10194289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. The nature of Class II relapse after Herbst appliance treatment: a cephalometric long-term investigation.
Pancherz H
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1991 Sep; 100(3):220-33. PubMed ID: 1877546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. A cephalometric and tomographic evaluation of Herbst treatment in the mixed dentition.
Croft RS; Buschang PH; English JD; Meyer R
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Oct; 116(4):435-43. PubMed ID: 10511673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Comparison of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbst appliance.
Sloss EA; Southard KA; Qian F; Stock SE; Mann KR; Meyer DL; Southard TE
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Apr; 133(4):509-14. PubMed ID: 18405814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Cephalometric analysis of changes produced by a modified Herbst appliance in the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion.
Sidhu MS; Kharbanda OP; Sidhu SS
Br J Orthod; 1995 Feb; 22(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 7786859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
