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 *

262 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17045148)

  • 1. Variations in orthodontic treatment planning decisions of Class II patients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models.
    Whetten JL; Williamson PC; Heo G; Varnhagen C; Major PW
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Oct; 130(4):485-91. PubMed ID: 17045148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need scored on plaster and digital models.
    Veenema AC; Katsaros C; Boxum SC; Bronkhorst EM; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
    Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):281-6. PubMed ID: 19329650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts.
    Leifert MF; Leifert MM; Efstratiadis SS; Cangialosi TJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):16.e1-4; discussion 16. PubMed ID: 19577140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity.
    Bootvong K; Liu Z; McGrath C; Hägg U; Wong RW; Bendeus M; Yeung S
    Eur J Orthod; 2010 Oct; 32(5):589-95. PubMed ID: 20164126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Digital treatment objectives: procedure and clinical application.
    Garino F; Garino GB
    Prog Orthod; 2004; 5(2):248-58. PubMed ID: 15546015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Intrarater agreement about the etiology of Class II malocclusion and treatment approach.
    Dolce C; Mansour DA; McGorray SP; Wheeler TT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Jan; 141(1):17-23. PubMed ID: 22196181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements.
    Stevens DR; Flores-Mir C; Nebbe B; Raboud DW; Heo G; Major PW
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Jun; 129(6):794-803. PubMed ID: 16769498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessment of orthodontic treatment need: a comparison of study models and facial photographs.
    Sherlock JM; Cobourne MT; McDonald F
    Community Dent Oral Epidemiol; 2008 Feb; 36(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 18205636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models.
    Mayers M; Firestone AR; Rashid R; Vig KW
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Oct; 128(4):431-4. PubMed ID: 16214623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Timing of Class II treatment: skeletal changes comparing 1-phase and 2-phase treatment.
    Dolce C; McGorray SP; Brazeau L; King GJ; Wheeler TT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):481-9. PubMed ID: 17920501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Virtual study models: a comparison of modular application systems.
    Favero L; Terrazzani C; Favero V; Stellini E; Cocilovo F
    Prog Orthod; 2009; 10(2):16-25. PubMed ID: 20545088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of soft-tissue profiles after treatment with headgear or Herbst appliance.
    Sloss EA; Southard KA; Qian F; Stock SE; Mann KR; Meyer DL; Southard TE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Apr; 133(4):509-14. PubMed ID: 18405814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An evaluation of the use of digital study models in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning.
    Rheude B; Sadowsky PL; Ferriera A; Jacobson A
    Angle Orthod; 2005 May; 75(3):300-4. PubMed ID: 15898364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The influence of cephalometrics on orthodontic treatment planning.
    Nijkamp PG; Habets LL; Aartman IH; Zentner A
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Dec; 30(6):630-5. PubMed ID: 18981169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Digital images as an alternative to orthodontic casts in assessing malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need.
    Mok CW; Zhou L; McGrath C; Hägg U; Bendeus M
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2007 Nov; 65(6):362-8. PubMed ID: 18071959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Orthodontists' views on indications for and timing of orthodontic treatment in Finnish public oral health care.
    Pietilä I; Pietilä T; Pirttiniemi P; Varrela J; Alanen P
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Feb; 30(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 17962314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study.
    Jena AK; Duggal R; Parkash H
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Nov; 130(5):594-602. PubMed ID: 17110256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Digital and plaster models: a comparison of measurements and times.
    Gracco A; Buranello M; Cozzani M; Siciliani G
    Prog Orthod; 2007; 8(2):252-9. PubMed ID: 18030371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Occlusal outcomes and efficiency of 1- and 2-phase protocols in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
    Cançado RH; Pinzan A; Janson G; Henriques JF; Neves LS; Canuto CE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Feb; 133(2):245-53; quiz 328.e1-2. PubMed ID: 18249291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of arch dimension changes in 1-phase vs 2-phase treatment of Class II malocclusion.
    Wortham JR; Dolce C; McGorray SP; Le H; King GJ; Wheeler TT
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):65-74. PubMed ID: 19577150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.