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

176 related items for PubMed ID: 28865846

  • 21.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Fully-customized distraction assembly for maxillofacial distraction osteogenesis: a novel device and its experimental accuracy verification.
    Kang SH, Tak HJ, Park HW, Kim JU, Lee SH.
    Head Face Med; 2020 Nov 26; 16(1):31. PubMed ID: 33243266
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. Misjudgments at the mandibular angle: freehand versus computer-assisted screw positioning.
    Lübbers HT, Messmer P, Grätz KW, Ellis RE, Matthews F.
    J Craniofac Surg; 2010 Jul 26; 21(4):1012-7. PubMed ID: 20613566
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Preliminary investigation into the effects of electrical stimulation on mandibular distraction osteogenesis in goats.
    El-Hakim IE, Azim AM, El-Hassan MF, Maree SM.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2004 Jan 26; 33(1):42-7. PubMed ID: 14690658
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. Re: Reconstruction of curved mandibular angle defects using a new internal transport distraction device: an experiment in goats.
    McLeod NM.
    Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Apr 26; 47(3):247-8. PubMed ID: 19124180
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. Biomechanics of mandibular distractor orientation: an animal model analysis.
    Cope JB, Samchukov ML, Cherkashin AM, Wolford LM, Franco P.
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1999 Aug 26; 57(8):952-62; discussion 963-4. PubMed ID: 10437723
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. Comparison of different orthodontic devices for mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis: a finite element study.
    Boccaccio A, Lamberti L, Pappalettere C, Cozzani M, Siciliani G.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Aug 26; 134(2):260-9. PubMed ID: 18675208
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Distraction osteogenesis: the effects of orthodontic tooth movement on distracted mandibular bone.
    Liou EJ, Polley JW, Figueroa AA.
    J Craniofac Surg; 1998 Nov 26; 9(6):564-71. PubMed ID: 10029771
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. Growth of the mandible after condylar reconstruction using transport distraction osteogenesis: an experimental investigation in goats.
    Zhu SS, Hu J, Ying BB, Li JH.
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2008 May 26; 121(5):1760-1767. PubMed ID: 18454001
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Condyle as the point of rotation for 3-D planning of distraction osteogenesis for hemifacial microsomia.
    Paeng JY, Lee JH, Lee JH, Kim MJ.
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2007 Mar 26; 35(2):91-102. PubMed ID: 17448668
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.