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.
271 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30166823)
1. Comparison of Rate of Canine Retraction and Anchorage Potential between Mini-implant and Conventional Molar Anchorage: An Davis D; Krishnaraj R; Duraisamy S; Ravi K; Dilip S; Charles A; Sushil NC Contemp Clin Dent; 2018; 9(3):337-342. PubMed ID: 30166823 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage. Thiruvenkatachari B; Ammayappan P; Kandaswamy R Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jul; 134(1):30-5. PubMed ID: 18617100 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison and measurement of the amount of anchorage loss of the molars with and without the use of implant anchorage during canine retraction. Thiruvenkatachari B; Pavithranand A; Rajasigamani K; Kyung HM Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Apr; 129(4):551-4. PubMed ID: 16627183 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of the Anchorage Value of the First Molars Supported with Implant and First Molars Supported with Second Molar during En Masse Retraction. Naik MK; Dharmadeep G; Muralidhar Reddy Y; Cherukuri S; Praveen Raj K; Reddy V J Int Soc Prev Community Dent; 2020; 10(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 32181216 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparative study between conventional en-masse retraction (sliding mechanics) and en-masse retraction using orthodontic micro implant. Basha AG; Shantaraj R; Mogegowda SB Implant Dent; 2010 Apr; 19(2):128-36. PubMed ID: 20386216 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Clinical application of micro-implant anchorage in initial orthodontic retraction. Wahabuddin S; Mascarenhas R; Iqbal M; Husain A J Oral Implantol; 2015 Feb; 41(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 23573806 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Tooth movement rate and anchorage lost during canine retraction: da C Monini A; Gandini LG; Vianna AP; Martins RP; Jacob HB Angle Orthod; 2019 Jul; 89(4):559-565. PubMed ID: 30741577 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tian H; Xie C; Lin M; Yang H; Ren A BMC Oral Health; 2020 Oct; 20(1):278. PubMed ID: 33036593 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Mini-screw implant or transpalatal arch-mediated anchorage reinforcement during canine retraction: a randomized clinical trial. Sharma M; Sharma V; Khanna B J Orthod; 2012 Jun; 39(2):102-10. PubMed ID: 22773673 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study. Upadhyay M; Yadav S; Patil S Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Dec; 134(6):803-10. PubMed ID: 19061808 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of anchorage loss during en-masse retraction with indirectly loaded miniscrews in patients with bimaxillary protrusion. Monga N; Kharbanda OP; Samrit V Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Aug; 150(2):274-82. PubMed ID: 27476360 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of orthodontic tooth movement between adolescents and adults based on implant superimposition. Ruan MJ; Chen G; Xu TM PLoS One; 2018; 13(5):e0197281. PubMed ID: 29813088 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Comparative photoelastic study of dental and skeletal anchorages in the canine retraction. de Assis Claro CA; Chagas RV; Neves AC; da Silva-Concílio LR Dental Press J Orthod; 2014; 19(1):100-5. PubMed ID: 24713566 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Canine retraction and anchorage loss: self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study. da Costa Monini A; Júnior LG; Martins RP; Vianna AP Angle Orthod; 2014 Sep; 84(5):846-52. PubMed ID: 24592906 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A clinical comparative study using anchorage from mini-implants and conventional anchorage methods to retract anterior teeth. Malhotra A; Mangla R; Dua VS; Kannan S; Arora N; Singh AK J Family Med Prim Care; 2021 Jan; 10(1):468-474. PubMed ID: 34017772 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of the stability of self-drilling mini-implants for maxillary anchorage under immediate loading. Lifshitz AB; Muñoz M World J Orthod; 2010; 11(4):352-6. PubMed ID: 21491001 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial. Upadhyay M; Yadav S; Nagaraj K; Patil S Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jul; 134(1):18-29.e1. PubMed ID: 18617099 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Anchorage loss during canine retraction using intermittent versus continuous force distractions; a split mouth randomized clinical trial. Mowafy MI; Zaher AR Prog Orthod; 2012 Sep; 13(2):117-25. PubMed ID: 23021114 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of direct and indirect skeletal anchorage systems combined with 2 canine retraction techniques. Ozkan S; Bayram M Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Nov; 150(5):763-770. PubMed ID: 27871702 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]