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

867 related items for PubMed ID: 27409656

  • 1. Cephalometric evaluation of the effects of the Twin Block appliance in subjects with Class II, Division 1 malocclusion amongst different cervical vertebral maturation stages.
    Khoja A, Fida M, Shaikh A.
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2016 Jun; 21(3):73-84. PubMed ID: 27409656
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Comparative Evaluation of Twin Block Appliance and Fixed Orthodontic Appliance in Early Class II Malocclusion Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Radwan ES, Maher A, Montasser MA.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2022 Nov 01; 23(11):1111-1121. PubMed ID: 37073934
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Skeletal and dentoalveolar changes concurrent to use of Twin Block appliance in class II division I cases with a deficient mandible: a cephalometric study.
    Sharma AK, Sachdev V, Singla A, Kirtaniya BC.
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2012 Nov 01; 30(3):218-26. PubMed ID: 23263425
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Cephalometric changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions after functional treatment with twin block versus myobrace appliances in developing skeletal class II patients: a randomized clinical trial.
    Madian AM, Elfouly D.
    BMC Oral Health; 2023 Dec 13; 23(1):998. PubMed ID: 38093237
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Treatment timing for Twin-block therapy.
    Baccetti T, Franchi L, Toth LR, McNamara JA.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Aug 13; 118(2):159-70. PubMed ID: 10935956
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Effects of modified twin block appliance in growing Class II high angle cases: A cephalometric study.
    Jha K, Adhikari M.
    F1000Res; 2022 Aug 13; 11():459. PubMed ID: 38680231
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Comparison of Activator-Headgear and Twin Block Treatment Approaches in Class II Division 1 Malocclusion.
    Spalj S, Mroz Tranesen K, Birkeland K, Katic V, Pavlic A, Vandevska-Radunovic V.
    Biomed Res Int; 2017 Aug 13; 2017():4861924. PubMed ID: 28203569
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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 13; 23(3):49-58. PubMed ID: 23094559
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Dentoalveolar, skeletal, pharyngeal airway, cervical posture, hyoid bone position, and soft palate changes with Myobrace and Twin-block: a retrospective study.
    Çoban Büyükbayraktar Z, Camcı H.
    BMC Oral Health; 2023 Jan 30; 23(1):53. PubMed ID: 36717838
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Effects of activator and high-pull headgear combination therapy: skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue profile changes.
    Marşan G.
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Apr 30; 29(2):140-8. PubMed ID: 17488997
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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 30; 130(5):594-602. PubMed ID: 17110256
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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 30; 36(2):164-72. PubMed ID: 24663007
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. [Soft tissue angle evaluation of fixed Twin-Block appliance treatment and tooth extraction treatment in skeletal Class II malocclusion].
    Gong Y, Li PL, Wang HH, Yu Q, Wei B, Shen G.
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2016 Feb 30; 25(1):82-6. PubMed ID: 27063315
    [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 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 18; 135(6):698.e1-10; discussion 698-9. PubMed ID: 19524823
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. [Analysis of the efficacy of Twin-block appliance on maxillofacial growth of six pairs of monozygotic twins].
    Ji GP, Pan XG, Shen G, Huang N.
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2005 Aug 18; 14(4):359-64. PubMed ID: 16155698
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. [Effect of Twin-block appliance in the treatment of Class II and division I malocclusion: a cephalometric study in 12 patients].
    Luo Y, Fang G.
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2005 Feb 18; 14(1):90-3. PubMed ID: 15747025
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. The effects of the Twin-block appliance treatment on the skeletal and dentolaveolar changes in Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
    Sidlauskas A.
    Medicina (Kaunas); 2005 Feb 18; 41(5):392-400. PubMed ID: 15947523
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 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 18; 37(3):330-7. PubMed ID: 25296729
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Long-term effects of the Forsus Device in Class II division I patients treated at pre-peak, peak, and post-peak growth periods: A retrospective study.
    Alhoraibi L, Alvetro L, Al-Jewair T.
    Int Orthod; 2020 Sep 18; 18(3):451-460. PubMed ID: 32778390
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 44.