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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12512783)

  • 1. The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods.
    Ongkosuwito EM; Katsaros C; van 't Hof MA; Bodegom JC; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
    Eur J Orthod; 2002 Dec; 24(6):655-65. PubMed ID: 12512783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis.
    Celik E; Polat-Ozsoy O; Toygar Memikoglu TU
    Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):241-6. PubMed ID: 19237509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Reliability and the smallest detectable differences of lateral cephalometric measurements.
    Damstra J; Huddleston Slater JJ; Fourie Z; Ren Y
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Nov; 138(5):546.e1-8; discussion 546-7. PubMed ID: 21055590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses.
    Uysal T; Baysal A; Yagci A
    Eur J Orthod; 2009 Oct; 31(5):523-8. PubMed ID: 19443692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Validity and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements obtained from digital photographs of analogue headfilms.
    Grybauskas S; Balciuniene I; Vetra J
    Stomatologija; 2007; 9(4):114-20. PubMed ID: 18303276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of landmark identification on postero-anterior cephalograms.
    Sicurezza E; Greco M; Giordano D; Maiorana F; Leonardi R
    Prog Orthod; 2012 Sep; 13(2):132-40. PubMed ID: 23021116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessing lower incisor inclination change: a comparison of four cephalometric methods.
    Jabbal A; Cobourne M; Donaldson N; Bister D
    Eur J Orthod; 2016 Apr; 38(2):184-9. PubMed ID: 25888531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements made by three radiology clinics.
    da Silveira HL; Silveira HE
    Angle Orthod; 2006 May; 76(3):394-9. PubMed ID: 16637717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison between 2D and 3D cephalometry on CBCT scans of human skulls.
    van Vlijmen OJ; Maal T; Bergé SJ; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 Feb; 39(2):156-60. PubMed ID: 20044238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods.
    Polat-Ozsoy O; Gokcelik A; Toygar Memikoglu TU
    Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):254-9. PubMed ID: 19349417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of hand-traced and computer-based cephalometric superimpositions.
    Huja SS; Grubaugh EL; Rummel AM; Fields HW; Beck FM
    Angle Orthod; 2009 May; 79(3):428-35. PubMed ID: 19413396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings.
    Sayinsu K; Isik F; Trakyali G; Arun T
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Feb; 29(1):105-8. PubMed ID: 17290023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Measurements from conventional, digital and CT-derived cephalograms: a comparative study.
    Ghoneima A; Albarakati S; Baysal A; Uysal T; Kula K
    Aust Orthod J; 2012 Nov; 28(2):232-9. PubMed ID: 23304973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of manual traced images and corresponding scanned radiographs digitally traced.
    Naoumova J; Lindman R
    Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):247-53. PubMed ID: 19342425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Longitudinal observation of mandibular motion pattern in patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion subsequent to orthognathic surgery.
    Wen-Ching Ko E; Huang CS; Lo LJ; Chen YR
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Feb; 70(2):e158-68. PubMed ID: 22260918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Systematic and random errors associated with Johnston's cephalometric analysis.
    Keeling SD; Cabassa SR; King GJ
    Br J Orthod; 1993 May; 20(2):101-7. PubMed ID: 8518263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessing incisor inclination: a non-invasive technique.
    Richmond S; Klufas ML; Sywanyk M
    Eur J Orthod; 1998 Dec; 20(6):721-6. PubMed ID: 9926639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Validity and reliability of a new edge-based computerized method for identification of cephalometric landmarks.
    Kazandjian S; Kiliaridis S; Mavropoulos A
    Angle Orthod; 2006 Jul; 76(4):619-24. PubMed ID: 16808568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Skeletal stability of patients undergoing maxillomandibular advancement for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea.
    Lee SH; Kaban LB; Lahey ET
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2015 Apr; 73(4):694-700. PubMed ID: 25622883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The reliability and reproducibility of an Android cephalometric smartphone application in comparison with the conventional method.
    Zamrik OM; İşeri H
    Angle Orthod; 2021 Mar; 91(2):236-242. PubMed ID: 33367490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.