Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 108

1.

Dentoskeletal Comparison of Changes Seen in Class II Cases Treated by Twin Block and Forsus.

Tarvade SM, Chaudhari CV, Daokar SG, Biday SS, Ramkrishna S, Handa AS.

J Int Oral Health. 2014 Jun;6(3):27-31. Epub 2014 Jun 26.

2.

A comparison of the treatment effects of the Forsus Fatigue Resistance Device and the Twin Block appliance in patients with class II malocclusions.

Hanoun A, Al-Jewair TS, Tabbaa S, Allaymouni MA, Preston CB.

Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2014 Aug 2;6:57-63. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S64119. eCollection 2014.

3.

A comparision of Twin-block and Forsus (FRD) functional appliance--a cephalometric study.

Mahamad IK, Neela PK, Mascarenhas R, Husain A.

Int J Orthod Milwaukee. 2012 Fall;23(3):49-58.

PMID:
23094559
4.
5.

Evaluation of the effects of skeletal anchoraged Forsus FRD using miniplates inserted on mandibular symphysis: A new approach for the treatment of Class II malocclusion.

Unal T, Celikoglu M, Candirli C.

Angle Orthod. 2015 May;85(3):413-9. doi: 10.2319/051314-345.1. Epub 2014 Oct 3.

PMID:
25279724
6.

Effects of miniplate anchored and conventional Forsus Fatigue Resistant Devices in the treatment of Class II malocclusion.

Turkkahraman H, Eliacik SK, Findik Y.

Angle Orthod. 2016 Mar 28. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID:
27018848
7.

Active-treatment effects of the Forsus fatigue resistant device during comprehensive Class II correction in growing patients.

Cacciatore G, Alvetro L, Defraia E, Ghislanzoni LT, Franchi L.

Korean J Orthod. 2014 May;44(3):136-42. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.3.136. Epub 2014 May 19.

8.

Comparison of Forsus FRD EZ and Andresen activator in the treatment of class II, division 1 malocclusions.

Bilgiç F, Başaran G, Hamamci O.

Clin Oral Investig. 2015 Mar;19(2):445-51. doi: 10.1007/s00784-014-1237-y. Epub 2014 Apr 1.

PMID:
24687248
9.
10.
11.
12.

Comparison of treatments with the Forsus fatigue resistant device in relation to skeletal maturity: a cephalometric and magnetic resonance imaging study.

Aras A, Ada E, Saracoğlu H, Gezer NS, Aras I.

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Nov;140(5):616-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.12.018.

PMID:
22051481
13.

Effectiveness of comprehensive fixed appliance treatment used with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device in Class II patients.

Franchi L, Alvetro L, Giuntini V, Masucci C, Defraia E, Baccetti T.

Angle Orthod. 2011 Jul;81(4):678-83. doi: 10.2319/102710-629.1. Epub 2011 Feb 7.

PMID:
21299410
14.

Biomechanical and clinical considerations in correcting skeletal class II malocclusion with Forsus™.

Adusumilli SP, Sudhakar P, Mummidi B, Varma DP, Arora S, Radhika A, Maheshwari A.

J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012 Nov 1;13(6):918-24.

PMID:
23404028
16.

Soft tissue effects of Twin Block and Herbst appliances in patients with Class II division 1 mandibular retrognathy.

Baysal A, Uysal T.

Eur J Orthod. 2013 Feb;35(1):71-81. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq187. Epub 2011 Feb 28.

17.

Dentoskeletal changes induced by the Jasper jumper and cervical headgear appliances followed by fixed orthodontic treatment.

de Oliveira JN Jr, Rodrigues de Almeida R, Rodrigues de Almeida M, de Oliveira JN.

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Jul;132(1):54-62.

PMID:
17628251
18.

Prospective study of dentoskeletal changes in Class II division malocclusion treatment with twin force bite corrector.

Guimarães CH Jr, Henriques JF, Janson G, de Almeida MR, Araki J, Cançado RH, Castro R, Nanda R.

Angle Orthod. 2013 Mar;83(2):319-26. doi: 10.2319/042312-339.1. Epub 2012 Aug 14.

PMID:
22891750
19.
20.
Items per page

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk