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

94 related items for PubMed ID: 30146651

  • 21. Profile changes associated with different orthopedic treatment approaches in Class III malocclusions.
    Arman A, Toygar TU, Abuhijleh E.
    Angle Orthod; 2004 Dec; 74(6):733-40. PubMed ID: 15673133
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Treatment of Class III malocclusion with the horseshoe appliance: case reports in growing patients.
    Yang KH.
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1997 Dec; 22(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 9643195
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. An assessment of late fixed functional treatment and the stability of Forsus appliance effects.
    Gao W, Li X, Bai Y.
    Aust Orthod J; 2014 May; 30(1):2-10. PubMed ID: 24968640
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. 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]

  • 25. 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 01; 118(5):549-59. PubMed ID: 11094369
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. Soft and hard tissue profile changes after rapid maxillary expansion and face mask therapy.
    Kurt G, Uysal T, Yagci A.
    World J Orthod; 2010 Nov 01; 11(4):e10-8. PubMed ID: 21490978
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. 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 01; 16():26. PubMed ID: 26303311
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. Skeletal, dental and soft-tissue changes induced by the Jasper Jumper appliance in late adolescence.
    Nalbantgil D, Arun T, Sayinsu K, Fulya I.
    Angle Orthod; 2005 May 01; 75(3):426-36. PubMed ID: 15898385
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. 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]

  • 30. A comparison of the skeletal, dental, and soft tissue effects caused by herbst and mandibular protraction appliances in the treatment of mandibular Class II malocclusions.
    Alves PF, Oliveira AG.
    World J Orthod; 2008 Oct 01; 9(1):e1-19. PubMed ID: 19641760
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Stability of Class II treatment with an edgewise crowned Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition: Skeletal and dental changes.
    Wigal TG, Dischinger T, Martin C, Razmus T, Gunel E, Ngan P.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Aug 01; 140(2):210-23. PubMed ID: 21803259
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. The effect of combined maxillary pad movable appliance and FR-III functional appliance in the treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion of deciduous teeth.
    Lyu L, Lin H, Huang H.
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Nov 11; 22(1):485. PubMed ID: 36368985
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Maxillary molar distalization or mandibular enhancement: a cephalometric comparison of comprehensive orthodontic treatment including the pendulum and the Herbst appliances.
    Burkhardt DR, McNamara JA, Baccetti T.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Feb 11; 123(2):108-16. PubMed ID: 12594414
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. [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 11; 30(3):278-82. PubMed ID: 22768767
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. 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 Jun 11; 30(3):218-26. PubMed ID: 23263425
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. A novel method for treatment of Class III malocclusion in growing patients.
    Al-Mozany SA, Dalci O, Almuzian M, Gonzalez C, Tarraf NE, Ali Darendeliler M.
    Prog Orthod; 2017 Dec 11; 18(1):40. PubMed ID: 29226300
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. A study of Class III treatment: orthodontic camouflage vs orthognathic surgery.
    Georgalis K, Woods MG.
    Aust Orthod J; 2015 Nov 11; 31(2):138-48. PubMed ID: 26999886
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. 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 Nov 11; 34(4):331-40. PubMed ID: 27681396
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Effect of protraction headgear on Class III malocclusion.
    Ngan P, Wei SH, Hagg U, Yiu CK, Merwin D, Stickel B.
    Quintessence Int; 1992 Mar 11; 23(3):197-207. PubMed ID: 1641462
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Dental arch and cephalometric changes following treatment for class III malocclusion by means of the function regulator (FR-3) appliance.
    Kalavritinos M, Papadopoulos MA, Nasiopoulos A.
    J Orofac Orthop; 2005 Mar 11; 66(2):135-47. PubMed ID: 15827701
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 5.