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 *

266 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7957655)

  • 1. A long-term cephalometric evaluation of treated Class II division 2 malocclusions.
    Binda SK; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM; Maertens JK; van 't Hof MA
    Eur J Orthod; 1994 Aug; 16(4):301-8. PubMed ID: 7957655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of activator and high-pull headgear combination therapy: skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue profile changes.
    Marşan G
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Apr; 29(2):140-8. PubMed ID: 17488997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Facial profile changes during and after Herbst appliance treatment.
    Pancherz H; Anehus-Pancherz M
    Eur J Orthod; 1994 Aug; 16(4):275-86. PubMed ID: 7957652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Perioral soft tissue evaluation of skeletal Class II Division 1: A lateral cephalometric study.
    Lee YJ; Park JT; Cha JY
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Sep; 148(3):405-13. PubMed ID: 26321338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Factors influencing soft tissue profile changes following orthodontic treatment in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
    Maetevorakul S; Viteporn S
    Prog Orthod; 2016; 17():13. PubMed ID: 27135067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Long-term effect of the chincap on hard and soft tissues.
    Abu Alhaija ES; Richardson A
    Eur J Orthod; 1999 Jun; 21(3):291-8. PubMed ID: 10407538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Determinants of successful treatment of bimaxillary protrusion: orthodontic treatment versus anterior segmental osteotomy.
    Baek SH; Kim BH
    J Craniofac Surg; 2005 Mar; 16(2):234-46. PubMed ID: 15750420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Class III malocclusion: the post-retention findings following a non-extraction treatment approach.
    Battagel JM; Orton HS
    Eur J Orthod; 1993 Feb; 15(1):45-55. PubMed ID: 8436196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Soft tissue, skeletal and dentoalveolar changes following conventional anchorage molar distalization therapy in class II non-growing subjects: a multicentric retrospective study.
    Fontana M; Cozzani M; Caprioglio A
    Prog Orthod; 2012 May; 13(1):30-41. PubMed ID: 22583585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes concurrent to use of Twin Block appliance in class II division I cases with a deficient mandible: a cephalometric study.
    Sharma AK; Sachdev V; Singla A; Kirtaniya BC
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2012; 30(3):218-26. PubMed ID: 23263425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effect of treatment with the Bass appliance on skeletal Class II malocclusions: a cephalometric investigation.
    Cura N; Saraç M
    Eur J Orthod; 1997 Dec; 19(6):691-702. PubMed ID: 9458602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effectiveness of pendulum, K-loop, and distal jet distalization techniques in growing children and its effects on anchor unit: A comparative study.
    Marure PS; Patil RU; Reddy S; Prakash A; Kshetrimayum N; Shukla R
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2016; 34(4):331-40. PubMed ID: 27681396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes during activator therapy.
    Cozza P; De Toffol L; Colagrossi S
    Eur J Orthod; 2004 Jun; 26(3):293-302. PubMed ID: 15222715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The use of tensor analysis to investigate facial changes in treated class II division 1 malocclusions.
    Battagel JM
    Eur J Orthod; 1996 Feb; 18(1):41-54. PubMed ID: 8746176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Treatment outcomes of growing Class II Division 1 patients with varying degrees of anteroposterior and vertical dysplasias, Part 1. Cephalometrics.
    Fogle LL; Southard KA; Southard TE; Casko JS
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2004 Apr; 125(4):450-6. PubMed ID: 15067261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Changes in nasolabial angle related to maxillary incisor retraction.
    Lo FD; Hunter WS
    Am J Orthod; 1982 Nov; 82(5):384-91. PubMed ID: 6961809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Facial aesthetics and the divine proportion: a comparison of surgical and non-surgical class II treatment.
    Shell TL; Woods MG
    Aust Orthod J; 2004 Nov; 20(2):51-63. PubMed ID: 16429875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Long-term effects of Herbst treatment in relation to normal growth development: a cephalometric study.
    Hansen K; Pancherz H
    Eur J Orthod; 1992 Aug; 14(4):285-95. PubMed ID: 1516661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.