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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17709072)

  • 21. A preliminary study of computer recognition and identification of skeletal landmarks as a new method of cephalometric analysis.
    Cohen AM; Ip HH; Linney AD
    Br J Orthod; 1984 Jul; 11(3):143-54. PubMed ID: 6591953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography: Part I. Accuracy and reproducibility.
    Waitzman AA; Posnick JC; Armstrong DC; Pron GE
    Cleft Palate Craniofac J; 1992 Mar; 29(2):112-7. PubMed ID: 1571344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The use of computed tomography to define zygomatic complex position.
    Furst IM; Austin P; Pharoah M; Mahoney J
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2001 Jun; 59(6):647-54. PubMed ID: 11381388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Cephalometric facial soft tissue changes with the twin block appliance in Class II division 1 malocclusion patients. A systematic review.
    Flores-Mir C; Major PW
    Angle Orthod; 2006 Sep; 76(5):876-81. PubMed ID: 17029526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Accuracy of computer programs in predicting orthognathic surgery hard tissue response.
    Kaipatur N; Al-Thomali Y; Flores-Mir C
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Aug; 67(8):1628-39. PubMed ID: 19615574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Photocephalometry: errors of projection and landmark location.
    Phillips C; Greer J; Vig P; Matteson S
    Am J Orthod; 1984 Sep; 86(3):233-43. PubMed ID: 6591803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Craniofacial skeletal measurements based on computed tomography: Part II. Normal values and growth trends.
    Waitzman AA; Posnick JC; Armstrong DC; Pron GE
    Cleft Palate Craniofac J; 1992 Mar; 29(2):118-28. PubMed ID: 1571345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A comparison study of different facial soft tissue analysis methods.
    Kook MS; Jung S; Park HJ; Oh HK; Ryu SY; Cho JH; Lee JS; Yoon SJ; Kim MS; Shin HK
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2014 Jul; 42(5):648-56. PubMed ID: 24954528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [A new 3-dimensional cephalometry model. A new 3-dimensional parameter analysis: the axis of inertia. A new idea: maxillofacial equilibrium].
    Treil J; Casteigt J; Madrid C; Borianne P
    Orthod Fr; 1997; 68(1):171-81. PubMed ID: 9432600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Landmark identification in computerized posteroanterior cephalometrics.
    El-Mangoury NH; Shaheen SI; Mostafa YA
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1987 Jan; 91(1):57-61. PubMed ID: 3467581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Variance of landmarks in digital evaluations: comparison between CT-based and conventional digital lateral cephalometric radiographs.
    Greiner M; Greiner A; Hirschfelder U
    J Orofac Orthop; 2007 Jul; 68(4):290-8. PubMed ID: 17639277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Three-dimensional assessment of facial bone cavities in Class I occlusion with normodivergent skeletal pattern.
    Ghoubril JV; Abou Obeid FM
    Odontostomatol Trop; 2012 Dec; 35(140):21-30. PubMed ID: 23513509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Preoperative accuracy of selective laser sintering (SLS) in craniofacial 3D modeling: comparison with patient CT data].
    Kaim AH; Kirsch EC; Alder P; Bucher P; Hammer B
    Rofo; 2009 Jul; 181(7):644-51. PubMed ID: 19253203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Precision, repeatability, and validation of the localization of cranial landmarks using computed tomography scans.
    Richtsmeier JT; Paik CH; Elfert PC; Cole TM; Dahlman HR
    Cleft Palate Craniofac J; 1995 May; 32(3):217-27. PubMed ID: 7605789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Morphometric methods to evaluate craniofacial growth: study in rabbits.
    de Abreu AT; Veeck EB; da Costa NP
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2006 Mar; 35(2):83-7. PubMed ID: 16549434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A systematic review of cephalometric facial soft tissue changes with the Activator and Bionator appliances in Class II division 1 subjects.
    Flores-Mir C; Major PW
    Eur J Orthod; 2006 Dec; 28(6):586-93. PubMed ID: 17095741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Three-dimensional cephalometry using helical computer tomography: measurement error caused by head inclination.
    Togashi K; Kitaura H; Yonetsu K; Yoshida N; Nakamura T
    Angle Orthod; 2002 Dec; 72(6):513-20. PubMed ID: 12518942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Three-dimensional Procrustes analysis of modern human craniofacial form.
    Badawi-Fayad J; Cabanis EA
    Anat Rec (Hoboken); 2007 Mar; 290(3):268-76. PubMed ID: 17525943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.