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

230 related items for PubMed ID: 27595716

  • 1. Dentoskeletal Effects of the Modified Tandem Appliance vs the Facemask Appliance in the Treatment of Skeletal Class III Malocclusion: A Single-center, Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Husson AH, Burhan AS, Salma FB, Nawaya FR.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2016 Jul 01; 17(7):522-9. PubMed ID: 27595716
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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 01; 37(3):330-7. PubMed ID: 25296729
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial.
    Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang X, Liu D, Zhou S.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Oct 01; 148(4):641-51. PubMed ID: 26432320
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Dentoskeletal effects of facemask therapy in skeletal Class III cleft patients with or without bone graft.
    Zhang Y, Jia H, Fu Z, Huang Y, Wang Z, Guo R, Shen J, Li W.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Apr 01; 153(4):542-549. PubMed ID: 29602346
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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 Apr 01; 16():26. PubMed ID: 26303311
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Reverse Forsus vs. facemask/rapid palatal expansion appliances in growing subjects with mild class III malocclusions : A randomized controlled clinical study.
    Yavan MA, Gulec A, Orhan M.
    J Orofac Orthop; 2023 Jan 01; 84(1):20-32. PubMed ID: 34269826
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Short-term effects of a modified Alt-RAMEC protocol for early treatment of Class III malocclusion: a controlled study.
    Masucci C, Franchi L, Giuntini V, Defraia E.
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2014 Nov 01; 17(4):259-69. PubMed ID: 25041370
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Cephalometric effects of Pushing Splints 3 compared with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy in Class III malocclusion children: a randomized controlled trial.
    Galeotti A, Martina S, Viarani V, Franchi L, Rongo R, D'Antò V, Festa P.
    Eur J Orthod; 2021 Jun 08; 43(3):274-282. PubMed ID: 33313718
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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 08; 145(1):41-54. PubMed ID: 24373654
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Treatment with facemask and removable upper appliance versus modified tandem traction bow appliance: the effects on mandibular space.
    Tortop T, Kaygisiz E, Erkun S, Yuksel S.
    Eur J Orthod; 2018 Jul 27; 40(4):372-377. PubMed ID: 29059295
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Cephalometric changes after the correction of class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion/facemask therapy.
    Macdonald KE, Kapust AJ, Turley PK.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Jul 27; 116(1):13-24. PubMed ID: 10393575
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. A comparative assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes of mild skeletal Class III malocclusion between facemask and facemask in combination with a miniscrew for anchorage in growing patients: A single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial.
    Seiryu M, Ida H, Mayama A, Sasaki S, Sasaki S, Deguchi T, Takano-Yamamoto T.
    Angle Orthod; 2020 Jan 27; 90(1):3-12. PubMed ID: 31398066
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Effects of maxillary protraction for early correction of class III malocclusion.
    Celikoglu M, Oktay H.
    Eur J Orthod; 2014 Feb 27; 36(1):86-92. PubMed ID: 23460730
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Skeletal and dental effects of a mini maxillary protraction appliance.
    Altug Z, Arslan AD.
    Angle Orthod; 2006 May 27; 76(3):360-8. PubMed ID: 16637712
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Cephalometric changes of pushing splints 3 compared to rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy on the airway space in class III growing patients: A randomized clinical trial.
    Galeotti A, Viarani V, Franchi L, Martina S, Rongo R, D'Antò V, Uomo R, Aristei F, Festa P.
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2024 Aug 27; 27(4):552-559. PubMed ID: 38366756
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Evaluation of the modified maxillary protractor applied to Class III malocclusion with retruded maxilla in early mixed dentition.
    Kajiyama K, Murakami T, Suzuki A.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Nov 27; 118(5):549-59. PubMed ID: 11094369
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 12.