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 *

81 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9582639)

  • 1. Change in the soft tissue profile during and after orthodontic treatment.
    Akin N
    J Marmara Univ Dent Fac; 1993 Sep; 1(4):347-53. PubMed ID: 9582639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A controlled clinical trial of the effects of the Twin Block and Dynamax appliances on the hard and soft tissues.
    Lee RT; Kyi CS; Mack GJ
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Jun; 29(3):272-82. PubMed ID: 17456506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Investigation of the vertical variations in the anterior region of Class II, division 1 malocclusions treated with different techniques].
    Hamamci O
    Turk Ortodonti Derg; 1989 Nov; 2(2):248-53. PubMed ID: 2489155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The influence of extraction orthodontic treatment on craniofacial structures: evaluation according to two different factors.
    Taner-Sarisoy L; Darendeliler N
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 May; 115(5):508-14. PubMed ID: 10229882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Extraction of maxillary first permanent molars in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
    Stalpers MJ; Booij JW; Bronkhorst EM; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM; Katsaros C
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Sep; 132(3):316-23. PubMed ID: 17826599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Soft and hard tissue changes in Class II division 1 patients treated with Tip-Edge plus appliance].
    Xu LL; Chen LL; Xu J; E LL; Bei DD; Liu HC
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2012 Apr; 47(4):214-20. PubMed ID: 22800699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Class II correction with the modified sagittal appliance and maxillary second molar extraction.
    Aras A
    Angle Orthod; 2000 Aug; 70(4):332-8. PubMed ID: 10961784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Relationship between malocclusion, soft tissue profile, and pharyngeal airways: A cephalometric study.
    Lopatienė K; Šidlauskas A; Vasiliauskas A; Čečytė L; Švalkauskienė V; Šidlauskas M
    Medicina (Kaunas); 2016; 52(5):307-314. PubMed ID: 27816426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of treatment effects with labial and lingual fixed appliances.
    Gorman JC; Smith RJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1991 Mar; 99(3):202-9. PubMed ID: 1998297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. [Class II malocclusion therapy using fixed orthodontic appliance].
    Skufca B; Jelenić T
    Vojnosanit Pregl; 2007 Nov; 64(11):779-82. PubMed ID: 18050974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbst appliance.
    Sloss EA; Southard KA; Qian F; Stock SE; Mann KR; Meyer DL; Southard TE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Apr; 133(4):509-14. PubMed ID: 18405814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The influence of cephalometrics on orthodontic treatment planning.
    Nijkamp PG; Habets LL; Aartman IH; Zentner A
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Dec; 30(6):630-5. PubMed ID: 18981169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The influence of extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment on the soft tissue profile.
    Katsaros C; Ripplinger B; Högel A; Berg R
    J Orofac Orthop; 1996 Dec; 57(6):354-65. PubMed ID: 8986054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study.
    Jena AK; Duggal R; Parkash H
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Nov; 130(5):594-602. PubMed ID: 17110256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Long-term profile changes associated with successfully treated extraction and nonextraction Class II Division 1 malocclusions.
    Zierhut EC; Joondeph DR; Artun J; Little RM
    Angle Orthod; 2000 Jun; 70(3):208-19. PubMed ID: 10926430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Class II Division 1 malocclusion with severe overbite: cephalometric evaluation of the effects of orthodontic treatment.
    Marques LS; Ramos-Jorge ML; Araujo MT; Bolognese AM
    World J Orthod; 2008; 9(4):319-28. PubMed ID: 19146013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Influence of cephalometric characteristics on the occlusal success rate of Class II malocclusions treated with 2- and 4-premolar extraction protocols.
    Janson G; Janson M; Nakamura A; de Freitas MR; Henriques JF; Pinzan A
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jun; 133(6):861-8. PubMed ID: 18538250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of changes in the vertical facial dimension with different anchorage systems in extraction and non-extraction subjects treated by Begg fixed appliances: a retrospective study.
    Alkumru P; Erdem D; Altug-Atac AT
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Oct; 29(5):508-16. PubMed ID: 17974541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini-block appliances: Part 2. Soft tissue changes.
    Sharma AA; Lee RT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Apr; 127(4):473-82. PubMed ID: 15821692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.