155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8530709)
21. Comparison of standard miniplates and locked miniplates in post-traumatic fracture stabilization.
Yazar L; Aydil BA; Ayhan M; Çömlekçioğlu Y
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg; 2022 Jun; 28(6):715-722. PubMed ID: 35652876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. An in vitro comparison of an adjustable bone fixation system.
Van Sickels JE; Peterson GP; Holms S; Haug RH
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2005 Nov; 63(11):1620-5. PubMed ID: 16243179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A comparative in vitro study on fixation of sagittal split osteotomies with Würzburg screws, Champy miniplates, and Biofix (biodegradable) rods.
Bouwman JP; Tuinzing DB; Kostense PJ
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1994 Feb; 23(1):46-8. PubMed ID: 8163861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. In vitro comparison of biomechanical characteristics of sagittal split osteotomy fixation techniques.
Ozden B; Alkan A; Arici S; Erdem E
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Sep; 35(9):837-41. PubMed ID: 16687240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis of Bone Fixation in Bilateral Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy Using Individual Models.
Tamura N; Takaki T; Takano N; Shibahara T
Bull Tokyo Dent Coll; 2018; 59(2):67-78. PubMed ID: 29962423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Stability of locking and conventional 2.0-mm miniplate/screw systems after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: finite element analysis.
Oguz Y; Uckan S; Ozden AU; Uckan E; Eser A
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Aug; 108(2):174-7. PubMed ID: 19615655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparison of stability of 2.0 mm standard and 2.0 mm locking miniplate/screws for the fixation of sagittal split ramus osteotomy on sheep mandibles.
Oguz Y; Saglam H; Dolanmaz D; Uckan S
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2011 Mar; 49(2):135-7. PubMed ID: 20226575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison between the rigidity of bicortical screws and a miniplate for fixation of a mandibular setback after a simulated bilateral sagittal split osteotomy.
Tharanon W
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1998 Sep; 56(9):1055-8. PubMed ID: 9734767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Functional stability of sagittal split ramus osteotomies: effects of positional screw size and placement configuration.
Shetty V; Freymiller E; McBrearty D; Caputo AA
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1996 May; 54(5):601-9: discussion 609-10. PubMed ID: 8632245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Does Fixation Method Affect Stability of Sagittal Split Osteotomy and Condylar Position?
Tabrizi R; Pourdanesh F; Sadeghi HM; Shahidi S; Poorian B
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2017 Dec; 75(12):2668.e1-2668.e6. PubMed ID: 28939191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Radiographic stereophotogrammetric evaluation of intersegmental stability after mandibular sagittal split osteotomy and rigid fixation.
Wall G; Rosenquist B
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2001 Dec; 59(12):1427-35; discussion 1435-6. PubMed ID: 11732029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Optimal placement of bicortical screws in sagittal split-ramus osteotomy of mandible.
Obeid G; Lindquist CC
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1991 Jun; 71(6):665-9. PubMed ID: 2062519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. In vitro biomechanical comparison of six different fixation methods following 5-mm sagittal split advancement osteotomies.
Oguz Y; Watanabe ER; Reis JM; Spin-Neto R; Gabrielli MA; Pereira-Filho VA
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2015 Aug; 44(8):984-8. PubMed ID: 25840861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Mechanical characteristics of the mandible after bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy: comparing 2 different fixation techniques.
Chuong CJ; Borotikar B; Schwartz-Dabney C; Sinn DP
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2005 Jan; 63(1):68-76. PubMed ID: 15635560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. The incidence of postoperative wound healing problems following sagittal ramus osteotomies stabilized with miniplates and monocortical screws.
Alpha C; O'Ryan F; Silva A; Poor D
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Apr; 64(4):659-68. PubMed ID: 16546646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Skeletal stability after mandibular setback surgery: comparison between the hybrid technique for fixation and the conventional plate fixation using an absorbable plate and screws.
Ueki K; Okabe K; Marukawa K; Mukozawa A; Moroi A; Miyazaki M; Sotobori M; Ishihara Y; Yoshizawa K; Ooi K
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2014 Jun; 42(4):351-5. PubMed ID: 23838410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. In vitro biomechanical evaluation of fixation methods of sagittal split ramus osteotomy in mandibular setback.
Oh JS; Kim SG
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2015 Mar; 43(2):186-91. PubMed ID: 25550092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Three-dimensional finite element analysis used to compare methods of fixation after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: setback surgery-posterior loading.
Erkmen E; Simşek B; Yücel E; Kurt A
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2005 Apr; 43(2):97-104. PubMed ID: 15749208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Stability of fixation methods in large mandibular advancements after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: an in vitro biomechanical study.
Kuik K; Ho JPTF; de Ruiter MHT; Klop C; Kleverlaan CJ; de Lange J; Hoekema A
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2021 May; 59(4):466-471. PubMed ID: 33468331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Which kind of miniplate to use in mandibular sagittal split osteotomy? An in vitro study.
Ribeiro-Junior PD; Magro-Filho O; Shastri KA; Papageorge MB
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Nov; 41(11):1369-73. PubMed ID: 22658672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
