BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

207 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18405820)

  • 1. Comparison of hand-traced and computerized cephalograms: landmark identification, measurement, and superimposition accuracy.
    Roden-Johnson D; English J; Gallerano R
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Apr; 133(4):556-64. PubMed ID: 18405820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 11. The application and accuracy of feature matching on automated cephalometric superimposition.
    Jiang Y; Song G; Yu X; Dou Y; Li Q; Liu S; Han B; Xu T
    BMC Med Imaging; 2020 Mar; 20(1):31. PubMed ID: 32192440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Ceph-X: development and evaluation of 2D cephalometric system.
    Mosleh MA; Baba MS; Malek S; Almaktari RA
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Dec; 17(Suppl 19):499. PubMed ID: 28155649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks.
    Liu JK; Chen YT; Cheng KS
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Nov; 118(5):535-40. PubMed ID: 11094367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.