An interview with: Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas

Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 15-25

  Weissheimer, André ^a   de Oliveira, Márlio Vinícius ^b   Pithon, Matheus Melo ^c   Júnior, Luiz Gonzaga Gandini ^d  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA   (Brazil)

^b EFOA   (Brazil)

^c STATE UNIVERSITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO   (Brazil)

^d SÃO PAULO STATE UNIVERSITY UNESP   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

TOOTH IMPLANT;

ADULT; AGE; BIOMECHANICS; BRAZIL; DENTAL PROCEDURE; DENTITION; DEVICES; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS II; MAXILLOFACIAL DEVELOPMENT; OPEN BITE; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; ORTHODONTICS; ORTHOGNATHIC SURGERY; PATIENT CARE PLANNING; PERIODONTAL DISEASE; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; TOOTH EXTRACTION; TOOTH IMPLANT; TRENDS;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; BRAZIL; DENTAL IMPLANTS; DENTITION, MIXED; ESTHETICS, DENTAL; EXTRAORAL TRACTION APPLIANCES; HUMANS; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS II; MAXILLOFACIAL DEVELOPMENT; OPEN BITE; ORTHODONTIC ANCHORAGE PROCEDURES; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE DESIGN; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCES, FUNCTIONAL; ORTHODONTICS, CORRECTIVE; ORTHOGNATHIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; PATIENT CARE PLANNING; TOOTH EXTRACTION; TOOTH MOVEMENT;

EID: 84892726173     PISSN: 21769451     EISSN: 21776709     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/S2176-94512013000600004     Document Type: Note

References (25)

1. Baccetti T, De Clerck HJ, Cevidanes LH, Franchi L. Morphometric analysis of treatment effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction in growing Class III patients. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(2):121-5.
2. Cevidanes L, Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA, De Clerck H. Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(5):799-806.
3. De Clerck H, Cevidanes L, Baccetti T. Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(5):577-81.
4. Nguyen T, Cevidanes L, Cornelis MA, Heymann G, de Paula LK, De Clerck H. Three-dimensional assessment of maxillary changes associated with bone anchored maxillary protraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(6):790-8.
5. Lara JC, Facio Umaña JA. Modified miniplates for orthopaedic skeletal anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(5):566-8.
6. Ruellas ACO. Biomecânica aplicada à clínica. Maringá: Dental Press; 2013.
7. De Clerck EE, Swennen GR. Success rate of miniplate anchorage for bone anchored maxillary protraction. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(6):1010-3.
8. Doshi UH, Jamwal RS, Bhad WA. Distalization of molars using two stage mini-implants: a case report. J Orthod. 2011;38(1):55-63.
9. Jung MH. A comparison of second premolar extraction and miniimplant total arch distalization with interproximal stripping. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(4):680-5.
10. Ueno S, Motoyoshi M, Mayahara K, Saito Y, Akiyama Y, Son S, et al. Analysis of a force system for upper molar distalization using a trans-palatal arch and mini-implant: a finite element analysis study. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35(5):628-33.
11. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Nanda R. Dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of mini-implants in Class II division 1 patients. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(2):240-7.
12. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Uribe F, Nanda R. Mini-implants vs fixed functional appliances for treatment of young adult Class II female patients: a prospective clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(2):294-303.
13. Yu IJ, Kook YA, Sung SJ, Lee KJ, Chun YS, Mo SS. Comparison of tooth displacement between buccal mini-implants and palatal plate anchorage for molar distalization: a finite element study. Eur J Orthod. 2011 Nov 2. [Epub ahead of print].
14. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nanda R. Vertical-dimension control during en-masse retraction with mini-implant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(1):96-108.
15. Silva DL, Mattos CT, Sant'Anna EF, Ruellas AC, Elias CN. Cross-section dimensions and mechanical properties of esthetic orthodontic coated archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(4 Suppl):S85-91.
16. Elayyan F, Silikas N, Bearn D. Mechanical properties of coated superelastic archwires in conventional and self-ligating orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(2):213-7.
17. Silva DL. Características dos fios ortodônticos estéticos Ortodontia e Odontopediatria [tese]. Rio de Janeiro (RJ): Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; 2012.
18. Oz AA, Arici N, Arici S. The clinical and laboratory effects of bracket type during canine distalization with sliding mechanics. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(2):326-32.
19. Ong E, McCallum H, Griffin MP, Ho C. Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(2):138e1-7. discussion 138-139.
20. Nascimento LEAG. Bráquetes autoligados versus convencionais: aspectos microbiológicos e biomecânicos [tese]. Rio de Janeiro (RJ): Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; 2013.
21. Frye L, Diedrich PR, Kinzinger GS. Class II treatment with fixed functional orthodontic appliances before and after the pubertal growth peak-a cephalometric study to evaluate differential therapeutic effects. J Orofac Orthop. 2009;70(6):511-27.
22. Kinzinger GS, Savvaidis S, Gross U, Gülden N, Ludwig B, Lisson J. Effects of Class II treatment with a banded Herbst appliance on root lengths in the posterior dentition. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(4):465-9.
23. Bock NC, von Bremen J, Ruf S. Occlusal stability of adult Class II division 1 treatment with the Herbst appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138(2):146-51.
24. Bock NC, Ruf S. Class II division 2 treatment-does skeletal maturity influence success and stability? J Orofac Orthop. 2013;74(3):187-204.
25. Greene CS. Relationship between occlusion and temporomandibular disorders: Implications for the orthodontist. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(1):11+13+15.