226 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32241354)
1. Comparison of 2 treatment protocols using fixed functional appliances in Class II malocclusion: Treatment results and stability.
Bozkurt AP; Aras I; Othman E; Aras A
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2020 Apr; 157(4):474-480. PubMed ID: 32241354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Class II subdivision treatment with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device vs intermaxillary elastics.
Aras I; Pasaoglu A
Angle Orthod; 2017 May; 87(3):371-376. PubMed ID: 27762602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Class II treatment effects with fixed functional appliances: Jasper jumper vs. Forsus fatigue resistant device.
Pupulim DC; Henriques JFC; Freitas KMS; Fontes FPH; Fernandes TMF
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2022 Feb; 25(1):134-141. PubMed ID: 34219381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effects of the Forsus fatigue-resistant device and mandibular anterior repositioning appliance in Class II malocclusion treatment.
Nogueira CQ; Galvão Chiqueto KF; Freire Fernandes TM; Castanha Henriques JF; Janson G
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2022 Dec; 162(6):814-823. PubMed ID: 36202700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. An assessment of late fixed functional treatment and the stability of Forsus appliance effects.
Gao W; Li X; Bai Y
Aust Orthod J; 2014 May; 30(1):2-10. PubMed ID: 24968640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of stepwise vs single-step advancement with the Functional Mandibular Advancer in Class II division 1 treatment.
Aras I; Pasaoglu A; Olmez S; Unal I; Tuncer AV; Aras A
Angle Orthod; 2017 Jan; 87(1):82-87. PubMed ID: 27366817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of the effects of skeletal anchoraged Forsus FRD using miniplates inserted on mandibular symphysis: A new approach for the treatment of Class II malocclusion.
Unal T; Celikoglu M; Candirli C
Angle Orthod; 2015 May; 85(3):413-9. PubMed ID: 25279724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Changes of epiglottis and hyoid bone position after orthodontic treatment with cast splint fixed functional appliances.
Hourfar J; Lisson JA; Kinzinger GSM
Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Mar; 25(3):1525-1534. PubMed ID: 33409688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Long-term effects of the Forsus Device in Class II division I patients treated at pre-peak, peak, and post-peak growth periods: A retrospective study.
Alhoraibi L; Alvetro L; Al-Jewair T
Int Orthod; 2020 Sep; 18(3):451-460. PubMed ID: 32778390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparison of the MARA and the AdvanSync functional appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.
Al-Jewair TS; Preston CB; Moll EM; Dischinger T
Angle Orthod; 2012 Sep; 82(5):907-14. PubMed ID: 22214390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of miniplate anchored and conventional Forsus Fatigue Resistant Devices in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.
Turkkahraman H; Eliacik SK; Findik Y
Angle Orthod; 2016 Nov; 86(6):1026-1032. PubMed ID: 27018848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of soft-tissue changes in young adults treated with the Forsus fatigue-resistant device.
Akan B; Veli İ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2020 Apr; 157(4):481-489.e2. PubMed ID: 32241355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of the effects of fixed and removable functional appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures.
Bilgiç F; Hamamci O; Başaran G
Aust Orthod J; 2011 Nov; 27(2):110-6. PubMed ID: 22372266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biomechanical and clinical considerations in correcting skeletal class II malocclusion with Forsus™.
Adusumilli SP; Sudhakar P; Mummidi B; Varma DP; Arora S; Radhika A; Maheshwari A
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Nov; 13(6):918-24. PubMed ID: 23404028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of treatments with the Forsus fatigue resistant device in relation to skeletal maturity: a cephalometric and magnetic resonance imaging study.
Aras A; Ada E; Saracoğlu H; Gezer NS; Aras I
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Nov; 140(5):616-25. PubMed ID: 22051481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comparision of Twin-block and Forsus (FRD) functional appliance--a cephalometric study.
Mahamad IK; Neela PK; Mascarenhas R; Husain A
Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2012; 23(3):49-58. PubMed ID: 23094559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
