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 *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15356499)

  • 1. The validity of superimposing oblique cephalometric radiographs to assess tooth movement: an implant study.
    Sakima MT; Sakima CG; Melsen B
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2004 Sep; 126(3):344-53. PubMed ID: 15356499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of differential growth and orthodontic treatment outcome by regional cephalometric superpositions.
    Efstratiadis SS; Cohen G; Ghafari J
    Angle Orthod; 1999 Jun; 69(3):225-30. PubMed ID: 10371427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An investigation of maxillary superimposition techniques using metallic implants.
    Doppel DM; Damon WM; Joondeph DR; Little RM
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1994 Feb; 105(2):161-8. PubMed ID: 8311038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Maxillary superimposition: a comparison of three methods for cephalometric evaluation of growth and treatment change.
    Nielsen IL
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1989 May; 95(5):422-31. PubMed ID: 2718972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Research methods in dentistry 9. Follow-up of permucosal implants in an edentate mandible using panoramic radiography].
    Verhoeven JW; Cune MS
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 2005 Mar; 112(3):86-9. PubMed ID: 15792391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. The variability and reliability of two maxillary and mandibular superimposition techniques. Part II.
    Cook AH; Sellke TA; BeGole EA
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1994 Nov; 106(5):463-71. PubMed ID: 7977186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Radiographic evaluation of orthodontic treatment by means of four different cephalometric superimposition methods.
    Lenza MA; Carvalho AA; Lenza EB; Lenza MG; Torres HM; Souza JB
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2015; 20(3):29-36. PubMed ID: 26154453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Analysis of tooth movement in extraction cases using three-dimensional reverse engineering technology.
    Cha BK; Lee JY; Jost-Brinkmann PG; Yoshida N
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Aug; 29(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 17513876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cephalometric superimpositions.
    Gu Y; McNamara JA
    Angle Orthod; 2008 Nov; 78(6):967-76. PubMed ID: 18947269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Growth displacement of the maxilla in girls studied by the implant method.
    Iseri H; Solow B
    Eur J Orthod; 1990 Nov; 12(4):389-98. PubMed ID: 2086259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The validity of two methods of mandibular superimposition: a comparison with tantalum implants.
    Springate SD; Jones AG
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1998 Mar; 113(3):263-70. PubMed ID: 9517716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparative analysis of the anterior and posterior length and deflection angle of the cranial base, in individuals with facial Pattern I, II and III.
    Thiesen G; Pletsch G; Zastrow MD; do Valle CV; do Valle-Corotti KM; Patel MP; Conti PC
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2013; 18(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 23876952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Longitudinal alteration of the occlusal plane and development of different dentoskeletal frames during growth.
    Tanaka EM; Sato S
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Nov; 134(5):602.e1-11; discussion 602-3. PubMed ID: 18984389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Facial growth during treatment with the function regulator appliance.
    Nielsen IL
    Am J Orthod; 1984 May; 85(5):401-10. PubMed ID: 6586079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Cephalometric superimposition on the occipital condyles as a longitudinal growth assessment reference: I-point and I-curve.
    Standerwick R; Roberts E; Hartsfield J; Babler W; Kanomi R
    Anat Rec (Hoboken); 2008 Dec; 291(12):1603-10. PubMed ID: 18833570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cephalometric assessment of sagittal relationship between maxilla and mandible.
    Nanda RS; Merrill RM
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1994 Apr; 105(4):328-44. PubMed ID: 8154458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Mandibular incisor position changes in relation to amount of bite jumping during Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment: a radiographic-cephalometric study.
    Martin J; Pancherz H
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):44-51. PubMed ID: 19577147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Assessment of maxillary position. Implant vs cephalometric methods.
    Verayannont P; Hägg U; Wong RW; McGrath C; Yeung S
    Angle Orthod; 2010 Sep; 80(5):876-83. PubMed ID: 20578858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.