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.
145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39425193)
1. Dentofacial and skeletal effects of two orthodontic maxillary protraction protocols: bone anchors versus facemask. Tabellion M; Lisson JA Head Face Med; 2024 Oct; 20(1):60. PubMed ID: 39425193 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment. Ngan P; Wilmes B; Drescher D; Martin C; Weaver B; Gunel E Prog Orthod; 2015; 16():26. PubMed ID: 26303311 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Dentofacial effects of skeletal anchored treatment modalities for the correction of maxillary retrognathia. Sar C; Sahinoğlu Z; Özçirpici AA; Uçkan S Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Jan; 145(1):41-54. PubMed ID: 24373654 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Liu W; Zhou Y; Wang X; Liu D; Zhou S Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Oct; 148(4):641-51. PubMed ID: 26432320 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effects of facemask treatment anchored with miniplates after alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions; a pilot study. Kaya D; Kocadereli I; Kan B; Tasar F Angle Orthod; 2011 Jul; 81(4):639-46. PubMed ID: 21299407 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Maxillary protraction with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask versus skeletal anchorage with mini-implants in class III patients: a non-randomized clinical trial. de Souza RA; Rino Neto J; de Paiva JB Prog Orthod; 2019 Sep; 20(1):35. PubMed ID: 31475309 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of the skeletodental effects of miniscrew-anchored and tooth-anchored facemask treatment in growing patients with skeletal class III malocclusions. Choi YK; Park JJ; Jeon HH; Kim YI Orthod Craniofac Res; 2023 Nov; 26(4):695-703. PubMed ID: 37272219 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Meta-analysis of the efficacy of bone anchorage and maxillary facemask protraction devices in treating skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion in adolescents]. Shi H; Ge HS; Chen LY; Li ZH Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2020 Feb; 38(1):69-74. PubMed ID: 32037769 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparative assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes of mild skeletal Class III malocclusion between facemask and facemask in combination with a miniscrew for anchorage in growing patients: Seiryu M; Ida H; Mayama A; Sasaki S; Sasaki S; Deguchi T; Takano-Yamamoto T Angle Orthod; 2020 Jan; 90(1):3-12. PubMed ID: 31398066 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of the change in inferior sclera exposure after maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage. Kale B; Buyukcavus MH; Esenlik E Niger J Clin Pract; 2018 Jul; 21(7):854-858. PubMed ID: 29984715 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Dentoskeletal effects of facemask therapy in skeletal Class III cleft patients with or without bone graft. Zhang Y; Jia H; Fu Z; Huang Y; Wang Z; Guo R; Shen J; Li W Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Apr; 153(4):542-549. PubMed ID: 29602346 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Treatment response and long-term dentofacial adaptations to maxillary expansion and protraction. Ngan PW; Hagg U; Yiu C; Wei SH Semin Orthod; 1997 Dec; 3(4):255-64. PubMed ID: 9573887 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Maxillary protraction at early ages. The revolution of new bone anchorage appliances. Solano-Mendoza B; Iglesias-Linares A; Yañez-Vico RM; Mendoza-Mendoza A; Alió-Sanz JJ; Solano-Reina E J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2012; 37(2):219-29. PubMed ID: 23534334 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Three-phase treatment concept for skeletal Class III growing patients with severe space deficiency: A report of three cases with skeletally anchored maxillary protraction. Lin HY; Yang H; Lai EH; Lin SY; Chang JZ J Formos Med Assoc; 2020 Apr; 119(4):869-878. PubMed ID: 31331705 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A retrospective comparison of two protocols for correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion in prepubertal children: hybrid hyrax expander with mandibular miniplates and rapid maxillary expansion with face mask. Tarraf NE; Dalci O; Dalci K; Altug AT; Darendeliler MA Prog Orthod; 2023 Jan; 24(1):3. PubMed ID: 36683080 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Corticotomy-assisted maxillary protraction with skeletal anchorage and Class III elastics. Yilmaz HN; Garip H; Satilmis T; Kucukkeles N Angle Orthod; 2015 Jan; 85(1):48-57. PubMed ID: 24913740 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Class III malocclusion treated with a 3D-printed hybrid hyrax distalizer combined with mentoplate using Alt-RAMEC protocol: A case report. Kathem SJ; Matras RC; Abbas SOM J Orthod; 2024 Jun; 51(2):183-191. PubMed ID: 37392009 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Treatment effects of maxillary protraction with palatal plates vs conventional tooth-borne anchorage in growing patients with Class III malocclusion. Lee YS; Park JH; Kim J; Lee NK; Kim Y; Kook YA Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2022 Oct; 162(4):520-528. PubMed ID: 35933257 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Long-term stability of Class III treatment: rapid palatal expansion and protraction facemask vs LeFort I maxillary advancement osteotomy. Pangrazio-Kulbersh V; Berger JL; Janisse FN; Bayirli B Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Jan; 131(1):7.e9-19. PubMed ID: 17208098 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion. Cevidanes L; Baccetti T; Franchi L; McNamara JA; De Clerck H Angle Orthod; 2010 Sep; 80(5):799-806. PubMed ID: 20578848 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]