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 *

234 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19687148)

  • 1. Improving the concordance between various anteroposterior cephalometric measurements using Procrustes analysis.
    Wellens H
    Eur J Orthod; 2009 Oct; 31(5):503-15. PubMed ID: 19687148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Age-related changes in sagittal relationship between the maxilla and mandible.
    Lux CJ; Burden D; Conradt C; Komposch G
    Eur J Orthod; 2005 Dec; 27(6):568-78. PubMed ID: 16093257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Compensation for vertical dysplasia and its clinical application.
    Anwar N; Fida M
    Eur J Orthod; 2009 Oct; 31(5):516-22. PubMed ID: 19679646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Development of cephalometric norms using a unified facial and dental approach.
    Anderson G; Fields HW; Beck M; Chacon G; Vig KW
    Angle Orthod; 2006 Jul; 76(4):612-8. PubMed ID: 16808567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A new sagittal dysplasia indicator: the YEN angle.
    Neela PK; Mascarenhas R; Husain A
    World J Orthod; 2009; 10(2):147-51. PubMed ID: 19582259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Determination of craniofacial growth in patients with untreated Class III malocclusions and anterior crossbites using the centroid method.
    Murata S
    Eur J Orthod; 2009 Oct; 31(5):496-502. PubMed ID: 19549679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cephalometric and in vivo measurements of maxillomandibular anteroposterior discrepancies: a preliminary regression study.
    Ferrario VF; Serrao G; Ciusa V; Morini M; Sforza C
    Angle Orthod; 2002 Dec; 72(6):579-84. PubMed ID: 12518952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Simplified cephalometric lines for the estimation of muscular lines of action.
    Ferrario VF; Sforza C; Miani A; Colombo A
    Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 1999; 14(1):47-54. PubMed ID: 10337250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of the correlation box (Segner) for characterization of the facial skeleton.
    Järvinen SH
    Proc Finn Dent Soc; 1992; 88(1-2):39-48. PubMed ID: 1470631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Craniofacial profile in Southern Chinese with hypodontia.
    Chan DW; Samman N; McMillan AS
    Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):300-5. PubMed ID: 19193707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of cephalometric analyses for assessing sagittal jaw relationship.
    Gul-e-Erum ; Fida M
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2008 Nov; 18(11):679-83. PubMed ID: 18983790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. ROC surface assessment of the ANB angle and Wits appraisal's diagnostic performance with a statistically derived 'gold standard': does normalizing measurements have any merit?
    Wellens HLL; BeGole EA; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
    Eur J Orthod; 2017 Aug; 39(4):358-364. PubMed ID: 28200074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison between cephalometric classification methods for sagittal jaw relationships.
    Hurmerinta K; Rahkamo A; Haavikko K
    Eur J Oral Sci; 1997 Jun; 105(3):221-7. PubMed ID: 9249188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Influence of occlusal plane inclination on ANB and Wits assessments of anteroposterior jaw relationships.
    Del Santo M
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 May; 129(5):641-8. PubMed ID: 16679204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Seven parameters describing anteroposterior jaw relationships: postpubertal prediction accuracy and interchangeability.
    Ishikawa H; Nakamura S; Iwasaki H; Kitazawa S
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Jun; 117(6):714-20. PubMed ID: 10842115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Semilongitudinal cephalometric study of craniofacial growth in untreated Class III malocclusion.
    Alexander AE; McNamara JA; Franchi L; Baccetti T
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jun; 135(6):700.e1-14; discussion 700-1. PubMed ID: 19524825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A method for defining targets in contemporary incisor inclination correction.
    Knösel M; Engelke W; Attin R; Kubein-Meesenburg D; Sadat-Khonsari R; Gripp-Rudolph L
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Aug; 30(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 18678757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.