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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

301 related items for PubMed ID: 12001553

  • 21. Comparison of stepwise vs single-step advancement with the Functional Mandibular Advancer in Class II division 1 treatment.
    Aras I, Pasaoglu A, Olmez S, Unal I, Tuncer AV, Aras A.
    Angle Orthod; 2017 Jan; 87(1):82-87. PubMed ID: 27366817
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Long-term comparison of treatment outcome and stability of Class II patients treated with functional appliances versus bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy.
    Berger JL, Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, George C, Kaczynski R.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Apr; 127(4):451-64; quiz 516-7. PubMed ID: 15821690
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. A retrospective cephalometric investigation of two fixed functional orthodontic appliances in class II treatment: Functional Mandibular Advancer vs. Herbst appliance.
    Kinzinger GSM, Lisson JA, Frye L, Gross U, Hourfar J.
    Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Jan; 22(1):293-304. PubMed ID: 28365810
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. Short-term skeletal and dental effects of the Xbow appliance as measured on lateral cephalograms.
    Flores-Mir C, Barnett G, Higgins DW, Heo G, Major PW.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Dec; 136(6):822-32. PubMed ID: 19962605
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and the activator-headgear combination appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment.
    Lima KJ, Henriques JF, Janson G, Pereira SC, Neves LS, Cançado RH.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 May; 143(5):684-94. PubMed ID: 23631970
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. Herbst appliance with skeletal anchorage versus dental anchorage in adolescents with Class II malocclusion: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
    Batista KBDSL, Lima T, Palomares N, Carvalho FA, Quintão C, Miguel JAM, Lin YL, Su TL, O'Brien K.
    Trials; 2017 Nov 25; 18(1):564. PubMed ID: 29178932
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. Effects of activator and high-pull headgear combination therapy: skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue profile changes.
    Marşan G.
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Apr 25; 29(2):140-8. PubMed ID: 17488997
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. A comparison of skeletal and dental changes in patients with a Class II relationship treated with clear aligner mandibular advancement and Herbst appliance followed by comprehensive orthodontic treatment.
    Hosseini HR, Ngan P, Tai SK, Andrews LJ, Xiang J.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2024 Feb 25; 165(2):205-219. PubMed ID: 37831020
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. Prospective clinical trial comparing the effects of conventional Twin-block and mini-block appliances: Part 1. Hard tissue changes.
    Gill DS, Lee RT.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Apr 25; 127(4):465-72; quiz 517. PubMed ID: 15821691
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Class II correction in Herbst and Bass therapy.
    Pancherz H, Malmgren O, Hägg U, Omblus J, Hansen K.
    Eur J Orthod; 1989 Feb 25; 11(1):17-30. PubMed ID: 2714389
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Class II correction in patients treated with class II elastics and with fixed functional appliances: a comparative study.
    Nelson B, Hansen K, Hägg U.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Aug 25; 118(2):142-9. PubMed ID: 10935954
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. Intensive treatment of severe Class II malocclusions with a headgear-Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition.
    Wieslander L.
    Am J Orthod; 1984 Jul 25; 86(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 6588755
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. The mechanism of Class II correction in Herbst appliance treatment. A cephalometric investigation.
    Pancherz H.
    Am J Orthod; 1982 Aug 25; 82(2):104-13. PubMed ID: 6961781
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and cervical headgear appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment.
    de Oliveira JN, Rodrigues de Almeida R, Rodrigues de Almeida M, de Oliveira JN.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Jul 25; 132(1):54-62. PubMed ID: 17628251
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. A cephalometric and tomographic evaluation of Herbst treatment in the mixed dentition.
    Croft RS, Buschang PH, English JD, Meyer R.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Oct 25; 116(4):435-43. PubMed ID: 10511673
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage.
    Lai EH, Yao CC, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Nov 25; 134(5):636-45. PubMed ID: 18984395
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Stepwise advancement Herbst appliance versus mandibular sagittal split osteotomy. Treatment effects and long-term stability of adult Class II patients.
    Chaiyongsirisern A, Rabie AB, Wong RW.
    Angle Orthod; 2009 Nov 25; 79(6):1084-94. PubMed ID: 19852598
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Short-term treatment effects produced by the Herbst appliance in the mixed dentition.
    de Almeida MR, Henriques JF, de Almeida RR, Weber U, McNamara JA.
    Angle Orthod; 2005 Jul 25; 75(4):540-7. PubMed ID: 16097222
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 16.