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
194 related items for PubMed ID: 31705310
21. Treatment effects of a twin-force bite corrector versus an activator in comparison with an untreated Class II sample: a preliminary report. Dalci O, Altug AT, Memikoglu UT. Aust Orthod J; 2014 May; 30(1):45-53. PubMed ID: 24968645 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Soft-tissue changes after Class II malocclusion treatment using the Sander bite-jumping appliance: a retrospective study. Tepedino M, Della Noce MV, Ciavarella D, Gallenzi P, Cordaro M, Chimenti C. Minerva Stomatol; 2019 Jun; 68(3):118-125. PubMed ID: 31014061 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Impact of initial lip competence on the outcome of class II functional appliances therapy. Sambale J, Jablonski-Momeni A, Korbmacher-Steiner HM. Clin Oral Investig; 2024 Jan 30; 28(2):126. PubMed ID: 38286891 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of the effects of fixed and removable functional appliances on the skeletal and dentoalveolar structures. Bilgiç F, Hamamci O, Başaran G. Aust Orthod J; 2011 Nov 30; 27(2):110-6. PubMed ID: 22372266 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Predictive value of molar bite force on Class II functional appliance treatment outcomes. Antonarakis GS, Kjellberg H, Kiliaridis S. Eur J Orthod; 2012 Apr 30; 34(2):244-9. PubMed ID: 21411476 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. A retrospective cephalometric investigation of two fixed functional orthodontic appliances in class II treatment: Functional Mandibular Advancer vs. Herbst appliance. Kinzinger GSM, Lisson JA, Frye L, Gross U, Hourfar J. Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Jan 30; 22(1):293-304. PubMed ID: 28365810 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Skeletal Class II treatment with Twin Force Bite Corrector: case reports. Altuğ-Ataç AT, Dalcı ÖN, Memikoğlu UT. World J Orthod; 2008 Jan 30; 9(3):e7-17. PubMed ID: 19641763 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Treatment effects produced by the twin-block appliance and the FR-2 appliance of Fränkel compared with an untreated Class II sample. Toth LR, McNamara JA. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Dec 30; 116(6):597-609. PubMed ID: 10587592 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Herbst appliance with skeletal anchorage versus dental anchorage in adolescents with Class II malocclusion: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Batista KBDSL, Lima T, Palomares N, Carvalho FA, Quintão C, Miguel JAM, Lin YL, Su TL, O'Brien K. Trials; 2017 Nov 25; 18(1):564. PubMed ID: 29178932 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. 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 25; 30(1):2-10. PubMed ID: 24968640 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Effects of two different removable functional appliances on depth of the posterior airway space : A retrospective cephalometric study. Hourfar J, Kinzinger GS, Meißner LK, Lisson JA. J Orofac Orthop; 2017 Mar 25; 78(2):166-175. PubMed ID: 27896418 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Influence of incisor position control on the mandibular response in growing patients with skeletal Class II malocclusion. Manni A, Mutinelli S, Cerruto C, Cozzani M. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2021 May 25; 159(5):594-603. PubMed ID: 33563504 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]