288 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9825553)
1. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part I--The hard tissues.
Illing HM; Morris DO; Lee RT
Eur J Orthod; 1998 Oct; 20(5):501-16. PubMed ID: 9825553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Treatment effects produced by the Bionator appliance. Comparison with an untreated Class II sample.
Almeida MR; Henriques JF; Almeida RR; Almeida-Pedrin RR; Ursi W
Eur J Orthod; 2004 Feb; 26(1):65-72. PubMed ID: 14994884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A prospective evaluation of Bass, Bionator and Twin Block appliances. Part II--The soft tissues.
Morris DO; Illing HM; Lee RT
Eur J Orthod; 1998 Dec; 20(6):663-84. PubMed ID: 9926634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Long-term dentoskeletal changes with the Bionator, Herbst, Twin Block, and MARA functional appliances.
Siara-Olds NJ; Pangrazio-Kulbersh V; Berger J; Bayirli B
Angle Orthod; 2010 Jan; 80(1):18-29. PubMed ID: 19852635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel compared with an untreated Class II sample.
Toth LR; McNamara JA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Dec; 116(6):597-609. PubMed ID: 10587592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. An extended period of functional appliance therapy: a controlled clinical trial comparing the Twin Block and Dynamax appliances.
Lee RT; Barnes E; DiBiase A; Govender R; Qureshi U
Eur J Orthod; 2014 Oct; 36(5):512-21. PubMed ID: 23291502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Long-term dentoskeletal effects and facial profile changes induced by bionator therapy.
Malta LA; Baccetti T; Franchi L; Faltin K; McNamara JA
Angle Orthod; 2010 Jan; 80(1):10-7. PubMed ID: 19852634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative study of the Fränkel (FR-2) and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.
De Almeida MR; Henriques JF; Ursi W
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2002 May; 121(5):458-66. PubMed ID: 12045763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Skeletal and dental components of Class II correction with the bionator and removable headgear splint appliances.
Martins RP; da Rosa Martins JC; Martins LP; Buschang PH
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Dec; 134(6):732-41. PubMed ID: 19061799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparative assessment of two-phase class II treatment with Activator or Bionator followed by fixed appliances: A retrospective controlled before-and-after study.
Abbing A; Koretsi V; Kalavritinos M; Schröder T; Eliades T; Papageorgiou SN
Int Orthod; 2024 Jun; 22(2):100863. PubMed ID: 38428369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Treatment effects of the Jasper Jumper and the Bionator associated with fixed appliances.
Neves LS; Janson G; Cançado RH; de Lima KJ; Fernandes TM; Henriques JF
Prog Orthod; 2014; 15(1):54. PubMed ID: 25182030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Dentoskeletal effects of the Bite-Jumping Appliance and the Twin-Block Appliance in the treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial.
Burhan AS; Nawaya FR
Eur J Orthod; 2015 Jun; 37(3):330-7. PubMed ID: 25296729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Maxillary molar distalization or mandibular enhancement: a cephalometric comparison of comprehensive orthodontic treatment including the pendulum and the Herbst appliances.
Burkhardt DR; McNamara JA; Baccetti T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Feb; 123(2):108-16. PubMed ID: 12594414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effectiveness of twin-block and Mandibular Protraction Appliance-IV in the improvement of pharyngeal airway passage dimensions in Class II malocclusion subjects with a retrognathic mandible.
Jena AK; Singh SP; Utreja AK
Angle Orthod; 2013 Jul; 83(4):728-34. PubMed ID: 23241007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Treatment effects of twin-block and mandibular protraction appliance-IV in the correction of class II malocclusion.
Jena AK; Duggal R
Angle Orthod; 2010 May; 80(3):485-91. PubMed ID: 20050741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy.
Baysal A; Uysal T
Eur J Orthod; 2014 Apr; 36(2):164-72. PubMed ID: 24663007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Clarifying the mechanism of effect of the Bionator for treatment of maxillary protrusion: A percentile growth study.
Oda H; Sandou M; Lin CM; Kamata M; Kawata T
Eur J Paediatr Dent; 2016 Sep; 17(3):213-219. PubMed ID: 27759410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
