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 *

183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8339762)

  • 1. Changes in dentofacial morphology in skeletal Class III children treated by a modified maxillary protraction headgear and a chin cup: a longitudinal cephalometric appraisal.
    Takada K; Petdachai S; Sakuda M
    Eur J Orthod; 1993 Jun; 15(3):211-21. PubMed ID: 8339762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The effects of maxillary protraction and its long-term stability--a clinical trial in Chinese adolescents.
    Chen L; Chen R; Yang Y; Ji G; Shen G
    Eur J Orthod; 2012 Feb; 34(1):88-95. PubMed ID: 21325335
    [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. Skeletal and dental effects of a mini maxillary protraction appliance.
    Altug Z; Arslan AD
    Angle Orthod; 2006 May; 76(3):360-8. PubMed ID: 16637712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Skeletal changes of maxillary protraction in patients exhibiting skeletal class III malocclusion: a comparison of three skeletal maturation groups.
    Cha KS
    Angle Orthod; 2003 Feb; 73(1):26-35. PubMed ID: 12607852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Soft tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with maxillary expansion and protraction headgear treatment.
    Ngan P; Hägg U; Yiu C; Merwin D; Wei SH
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1996 Jan; 109(1):38-49. PubMed ID: 8540481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effect of a modified reverse headgear force applied with a facebow on the dentofacial structures.
    Göyenç Y; Ersoy S
    Eur J Orthod; 2004 Feb; 26(1):51-7. PubMed ID: 14994882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effects of a modified protraction headgear on maxilla.
    Alcan T; Keles A; Erverdi N
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Jan; 117(1):27-38. PubMed ID: 10629517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Craniofacial adaptations induced by chincup therapy in Class III patients.
    Deguchi T; McNamara JA
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Feb; 115(2):175-82. PubMed ID: 9971929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Treatment and posttreatment effects of a facial mask combined with a bite-block appliance in Class III malocclusion.
    Cozza P; Baccetti T; Mucedero M; Pavoni C; Franchi L
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Sep; 138(3):300-10. PubMed ID: 20816299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Craniofacial morphology of skeletal class III patients before treatment and growth-related changes during treatment with a maxillary protraction appliance: a comparison of orthodontic and surgical cases.
    Murakami C; Hiyama S; Ohyama K
    World J Orthod; 2005; 6(1):51-60. PubMed ID: 15794042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Skeletal, dental and soft tissue changes in postural class III malocclusion treated with a maxillary removable appliance.
    Alhaija ES
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2006; 31(2):149-52. PubMed ID: 17315814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Effects of treatment with a combined maxillary protraction and chincap appliance in skeletal Class III patients with different vertical skeletal morphologies.
    Yoshida I; Shoji T; Mizoguchi I
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Apr; 29(2):126-33. PubMed ID: 17218717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Control of the vertical dimension in Class II correction using a cervical headgear and lower utility arch in growing patients. Part I.
    Cook AH; Sellke TA; BeGole EA
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1994 Oct; 106(4):376-88. PubMed ID: 7942653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients.
    De Clerck H; Cevidanes L; Baccetti T
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Nov; 138(5):577-81. PubMed ID: 21055597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Treatment response to maxillary expansion and protraction.
    Ngan P; Hägg U; Yiu C; Merwin D; Wei SH
    Eur J Orthod; 1996 Apr; 18(2):151-68. PubMed ID: 8670927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Geometric morphometric assessment of treatment effects of maxillary protraction combined with chin cup appliance on the maxillofacial complex.
    Chang HP; Lin HC; Liu PH; Chang CH
    J Oral Rehabil; 2005 Oct; 32(10):720-8. PubMed ID: 16159349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.