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

435 related items for PubMed ID: 22768767

  • 1. [Soft and hard tissue changes after maxillary protraction with skeletal anchorage implant in treatment of Class III malocclusion].
    Meng Y, Liu J, Guo X, Deng K, Liu M, Zhou J.
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2012 Jun; 30(3):278-82. PubMed ID: 22768767
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Soft tissue profile changes following maxillary protraction in Class III subjects.
    Kilic N, Catal G, Kiki A, Oktay H.
    Eur J Orthod; 2010 Aug; 32(4):419-24. PubMed ID: 20053719
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. [Three dimensional measurement and analysis of maxillary protraction treatment in skeletal Class III malocclusion].
    Qin YJ, Shen YJ, Gu Y, Wang S, Liu K, Zhao CY.
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2014 Dec; 23(6):699-703. PubMed ID: 25636285
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Dentofacial effects of skeletal anchored treatment modalities for the correction of maxillary retrognathia.
    Sar C, Sahinoğlu Z, Özçirpici AA, Uçkan S.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Jan; 145(1):41-54. PubMed ID: 24373654
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Skeletal response to maxillary protraction in patients with cleft lip and palate before age 10 years.
    Tindlund RS.
    Cleft Palate Craniofac J; 1994 Jul; 31(4):295-308. PubMed ID: 7918525
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Soft tissue and dentoskeletal profile changes associated with maxillary expansion and protraction headgear treatment.
    Ngan P, Hägg U, Yiu C, Merwin D, Wei SH.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1996 Jan; 109(1):38-49. PubMed ID: 8540481
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Class III malocclusion treated with a 3D-printed hybrid hyrax distalizer combined with mentoplate using Alt-RAMEC protocol: A case report.
    Kathem SJ, Matras RC, Abbas SOM.
    J Orthod; 2024 Jun; 51(2):183-191. PubMed ID: 37392009
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Soft and hard tissue changes after bimaxillary surgery in Turkish female Class III patients.
    Marşan G, Cura N, Emekli U.
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2009 Jan; 37(1):8-17. PubMed ID: 18786833
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Soft and hard tissue profile changes after rapid maxillary expansion and face mask therapy.
    Kurt G, Uysal T, Yagci A.
    World J Orthod; 2010 Jan; 11(4):e10-8. PubMed ID: 21490978
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. The effectiveness of pendulum, K-loop, and distal jet distalization techniques in growing children and its effects on anchor unit: A comparative study.
    Marure PS, Patil RU, Reddy S, Prakash A, Kshetrimayum N, Shukla R.
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2016 Jan; 34(4):331-40. PubMed ID: 27681396
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.
    Yao CC, Lai EH, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Nov; 134(5):615-24. PubMed ID: 18984393
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Comparison of two maxillary protraction protocols: tooth-borne versus bone-anchored protraction facemask treatment.
    Ngan P, Wilmes B, Drescher D, Martin C, Weaver B, Gunel E.
    Prog Orthod; 2015 Nov; 16():26. PubMed ID: 26303311
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage.
    Sar C, Arman-Özçırpıcı A, Uçkan S, Yazıcı AC.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 May; 139(5):636-49. PubMed ID: 21536207
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. [Orthodonticorthognathic treatment stability in skeletal class III malocclusion patients].
    Wang XJ, Zhang YM, Zhou YH.
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2019 Feb 18; 51(1):86-92. PubMed ID: 30773550
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Comparison of short-term effects between face mask and skeletal anchorage therapy with intermaxillary elastics in patients with maxillary retrognathia.
    Ağlarcı C, Esenlik E, Fındık Y.
    Eur J Orthod; 2016 Jun 18; 38(3):313-23. PubMed ID: 26219549
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. A study of Class III treatment: orthodontic camouflage vs orthognathic surgery.
    Georgalis K, Woods MG.
    Aust Orthod J; 2015 Nov 18; 31(2):138-48. PubMed ID: 26999886
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Soft tissue, skeletal and dentoalveolar changes following conventional anchorage molar distalization therapy in class II non-growing subjects: a multicentric retrospective study.
    Fontana M, Cozzani M, Caprioglio A.
    Prog Orthod; 2012 May 18; 13(1):30-41. PubMed ID: 22583585
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Comparison of the change in inferior sclera exposure after maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage.
    Kale B, Buyukcavus MH, Esenlik E.
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2018 Jul 18; 21(7):854-858. PubMed ID: 29984715
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. [Evaluation of the correction of the skeletal class III malocclusion by distalization of the whole mandible dentition with micro-implant anchorage].
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2017 Jun 18; 49(3):531-539. PubMed ID: 28628160
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. [Meta-analysis of the efficacy of bone anchorage and maxillary facemask protraction devices in treating skeletal class Ⅲ malocclusion in adolescents].
    Shi H, Ge HS, Chen LY, Li ZH.
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2020 Feb 01; 38(1):69-74. PubMed ID: 32037769
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 22.