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

799 related items for PubMed ID: 17110256

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy.
    Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara JA.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Aug; 118(2):159-70. PubMed ID: 10935956
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Comparison of Twin-block and Dynamax appliances for the treatment of Class II malocclusion in adolescents: a randomized controlled trial.
    Thiruvenkatachari B, Sandler J, Murray A, Walsh T, O'Brien K.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Aug; 138(2):144.e1-9; discussion 144-5. PubMed ID: 20691354
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. A comparision of Twin-block and Forsus (FRD) functional appliance--a cephalometric study.
    Mahamad IK, Neela PK, Mascarenhas R, Husain A.
    Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2012 Aug; 23(3):49-58. PubMed ID: 23094559
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. 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; 132(1):54-62. PubMed ID: 17628251
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment.
    Dolce C, McGorray SP, Brazeau L, King GJ, Wheeler TT.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):481-9. PubMed ID: 17920501
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Cephalometric markers to consider in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the bionator.
    Ahn SJ, Kim JT, Nahm DS.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Jun; 119(6):578-86. PubMed ID: 11395700
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. An evaluation of maxillary and mandibular rotational responses with the Clark twin block appliance.
    Lau EY, Sampson WJ, Townsend GC, Hughes T.
    Aust Orthod J; 2009 May; 25(1):48-58. PubMed ID: 19634464
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Orthodontic treatment changes of chin position in Class II Division 1 patients.
    LaHaye MB, Buschang PH, Alexander RG, Boley JC.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Dec; 130(6):732-41. PubMed ID: 17169735
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Long-term effectiveness and treatment timing for Bionator therapy.
    Faltin KJ, Faltin RM, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Ghiozzi B, McNamara JA.
    Angle Orthod; 2003 Jun; 73(3):221-30. PubMed ID: 12828429
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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; 118(2):142-9. PubMed ID: 10935954
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Clinical effectiveness of the Twin block appliance in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
    Sidlauskas A.
    Stomatologija; 2005 Aug; 7(1):7-10. PubMed ID: 16254470
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Treatment of developing Class II Division 1 malocclusion with Jumper Twin Block.
    Hammad SM, Bashir ES, El-Bialy AA.
    Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2012 Aug; 23(2):51-6. PubMed ID: 22873025
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. 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; 127(4):465-72; quiz 517. PubMed ID: 15821691
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 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]

  • 20. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 40.