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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

217 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32778390)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Dental and skeletal changes in patients with mandibular retrognathism following treatment with Herbst and pre-adjusted fixed appliance.
    de Abreu Vigorito F; Dominguez GC; de Arruda Aidar LA
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2014; 19(1):46-54. PubMed ID: 24713559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Treatment outcome and long-term stability of class II correction with forsus fatigue resistant device in non-growing patients.
    Zitouni M; Acar YB
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2021 Feb; 24(1):130-136. PubMed ID: 32757406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Maxillary molar distalization or mandibular enhancement: a cephalometric comparison of comprehensive orthodontic treatment including the pendulum and the Herbst appliances.
    Burkhardt DR; McNamara JA; Baccetti T
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Feb; 123(2):108-16. PubMed ID: 12594414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of the splint-supported Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in skeletal Class II growing subjects.
    Elkordy SA; Abdeldayem R; Fayed MMS; Negm I; El Ghoul D; Abouelezz AM
    Angle Orthod; 2021 Jan; 91(1):9-21. PubMed ID: 33289779
    [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. Three-dimensional Evaluation of the Carriere Motion 3D Appliance in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.
    Biggs EV; Benavides E; McNamara JA; Cevidanes LHS; Copello F; Lints RR; Lints JP; Ruellas ACO
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2023 Dec; 164(6):824-836. PubMed ID: 37598337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A randomized clinical trial to assess the sagittal effects of Transforce transverse appliance (TTA) and NiTi palatal expander (NPE) on skeletal class II malocclusion in growing patients during retention phase - A cephalometric study using a historical control group.
    Nagrik AP; Bhad WA; Chavan SJ; Doshi UH
    Int Orthod; 2020 Dec; 18(4):722-731. PubMed ID: 33020047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of treatment outcomes with crowned and banded mandibular anterior repositioning appliance (MARA) in Class II pubertal subjects: A retrospective cohort study.
    Al-Jewair T; Ghorbaniparvar M; Franchi L; Flores-Mir C
    Int Orthod; 2020 Jun; 18(2):297-307. PubMed ID: 32111577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of the miniplate-anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in skeletal Class II growing subjects:
    Elkordy SA; Abouelezz AM; Fayed MMS; Aboulfotouh MH; Mostafa YA
    Angle Orthod; 2019 May; 89(3):391-403. PubMed ID: 30644762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Treatment timing of MARA and fixed appliance therapy of Class II malocclusion.
    Ghislanzoni LT; Baccetti T; Toll D; Defraia E; McNamara JA; Franchi L
    Eur J Orthod; 2013 Jun; 35(3):394-400. PubMed ID: 22423185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Cephalometric changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions after functional treatment with twin block versus myobrace appliances in developing skeletal class II patients: a randomized clinical trial.
    Madian AM; Elfouly D
    BMC Oral Health; 2023 Dec; 23(1):998. PubMed ID: 38093237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Analysis of Class II patients, successfully treated with the straight-wire and Forsus appliances, based on cervical vertebral maturation status.
    Servello DF; Fallis DW; Alvetro L
    Angle Orthod; 2015 Jan; 85(1):80-6. PubMed ID: 24849243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.