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 *

449 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15132440)

  • 1. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry.
    Chen YJ; Chen SK; Yao JC; Chang HF
    Angle Orthod; 2004 Apr; 74(2):155-61. PubMed ID: 15132440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry.
    Chen YJ; Chen SK; Chang HF; Chen KC
    Angle Orthod; 2000 Oct; 70(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 11036999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs.
    Bruntz LQ; Palomo JM; Baden S; Hans MG
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Sep; 130(3):340-8. PubMed ID: 16979492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique.
    Santoro M; Jarjoura K; Cangialosi TJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Mar; 129(3):345-51. PubMed ID: 16527629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of landmark identification and linear and angular measurements in conventional and digital cephalometry.
    Akhare PJ; Dagab AM; Alle RS; Shenoyd U; Garla V
    Int J Comput Dent; 2013; 16(3):241-54. PubMed ID: 24364195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of measurements from photographed lateral cephalograms and scanned cephalograms.
    Collins J; Shah A; McCarthy C; Sandler J
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Dec; 132(6):830-3. PubMed ID: 18068604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accuracy of cephalometric landmarks on monitor-displayed radiographs with and without image emboss enhancement.
    Leonardi RM; Giordano D; Maiorana F; Greco M
    Eur J Orthod; 2010 Jun; 32(3):242-7. PubMed ID: 20022892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reliability of landmark identification on monitor-displayed lateral cephalometric images.
    Yu SH; Nahm DS; Baek SH
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jun; 133(6):790.e1-6; discussion e1. PubMed ID: 18538235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Landmark identification on direct digital versus film-based cephalometric radiographs: a human skull study.
    Schulze RK; Gloede MB; Doll GM
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2002 Dec; 122(6):635-42. PubMed ID: 12490875
    [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. Landmark identification errors on cone-beam computed tomography-derived cephalograms and conventional digital cephalograms.
    Chang ZC; Hu FC; Lai E; Yao CC; Chen MH; Chen YJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Dec; 140(6):e289-97. PubMed ID: 22133963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reliability of computer-generated cephalometrics.
    Nimkarn Y; Miles PG
    Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 1995; 10(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 9081992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Reliability of landmark identification in cephalometric radiography acquired by a storage phosphor imaging system.
    Chen YJ; Chen SK; Huang HW; Yao CC; Chang HF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Sep; 33(5):301-6. PubMed ID: 15585806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Effects of image enhancement on reliability of landmark identification in digital cephalometry.
    Oshagh M; Shahidi SH; Danaei SH
    Indian J Dent Res; 2013; 24(1):98-103. PubMed ID: 23852241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparative cephalometric errors for orthodontic and surgical patients.
    Wah PL; Cooke MS; Hägg U
    Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 1995; 10(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 9081997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cephalometric digitization: A determination of the minimum scanner settings necessary for precise landmark identification.
    Held CL; Ferguson DJ; Gallo MW
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 May; 119(5):472-81. PubMed ID: 11343018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of training and experience on cephalometric measurement errors on surgical patients.
    Lau PY; Cooke MS; Hägg U
    Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 1997; 12(3):204-13. PubMed ID: 9511491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 23.