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

219 related items for PubMed ID: 9387832

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion.
    Yao CC, Lai EH, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Nov; 134(5):615-24. PubMed ID: 18984393
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 7. Maxillary anterior en masse retraction using different antero-posterior position of mini screw: a 3D finite element study.
    Hedayati Z, Shomali M.
    Prog Orthod; 2016 Dec; 17(1):31. PubMed ID: 27667816
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. An unusual case of invasive cervical resorption after piezosurgery-assisted en masse retraction.
    Tunçer Nİ, Köseoğlu-Seçgin C, Arman-Özçırpıcı A.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2019 Jul; 156(1):137-147. PubMed ID: 31256827
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Class II correction with the modified sagittal appliance and maxillary second molar extraction.
    Aras A.
    Angle Orthod; 2000 Aug; 70(4):332-8. PubMed ID: 10961784
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial.
    Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY.
    Eur J Orthod; 2014 Jun; 36(3):275-83. PubMed ID: 23787192
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Class II malocclusion treated with miniscrew anchorage: comparison with traditional orthodontic mechanics outcomes.
    Kuroda S, Yamada K, Deguchi T, Kyung HM, Takano-Yamamoto T.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Mar; 135(3):302-9. PubMed ID: 19268827
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Zygomatic anchorage for en masse retraction in the treatment of severe Class II division 1.
    Erverdi N, Acar A.
    Angle Orthod; 2005 May; 75(3):483-90. PubMed ID: 15898393
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 17. Factors controlling anterior torque with C-implants depend on en-masse retraction without posterior appliances: biocreative therapy type II technique.
    Mo SS, Kim SH, Sung SJ, Chung KR, Chun YS, Kook YA, Nelson G.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Feb; 139(2):e183-91. PubMed ID: 21300229
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Treatment of severe Class II Division 1 deep overbite malocclusion without extractions in an adult.
    Horiuchi Y, Horiuchi M, Soma K.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Apr; 133(4 Suppl):S121-9. PubMed ID: 18407019
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 11.