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 *

225 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20164126)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models.
    Zilberman O; Huggare JA; Parikakis KA
    Angle Orthod; 2003 Jun; 73(3):301-6. PubMed ID: 12828439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [The comparison analysis of the line measurements between plaster and virtual orthodontic 3D models].
    Jedlińska A
    Ann Acad Med Stetin; 2008; 54(2):106-13. PubMed ID: 19374240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Is the Royal London Space Analysis reliable and does it influence orthodontic treatment decisions?
    Al-Abdallah M; Sandler J; O'Brien K
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Oct; 30(5):503-7. PubMed ID: 18632842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Accuracy and validity of space analysis and irregularity index measurements using digital models.
    Goonewardene RW; Goonewardene MS; Razza JM; Murray K
    Aust Orthod J; 2008 Nov; 24(2):83-90. PubMed ID: 19113071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile3 digital models.
    Watanabe-Kanno GA; Abrão J; Miasiro Junior H; Sánchez-Ayala A; Lagravère MO
    Braz Oral Res; 2009; 23(3):288-95. PubMed ID: 19893964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Determination of tooth-size discrepancy and Bolton ratios using Bibliocast Cécile3 digital models.
    Watanabe-Kanno GA; Abrão J; Junior HM; Sánchez-Ayala A; Lagravère MO
    Int Orthod; 2010 Sep; 8(3):215-26. PubMed ID: 20739241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of virtual and manual tooth setups with digital and plaster models in extraction cases.
    Im J; Cha JY; Lee KJ; Yu HS; Hwang CJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Apr; 145(4):434-42. PubMed ID: 24703281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. A clinical photogrammetric method to measure dental arch dimensions and mesio-distal tooth size.
    Normando D; da Silva PL; Mendes ÁM
    Eur J Orthod; 2011 Dec; 33(6):721-6. PubMed ID: 21282283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models.
    Quimby ML; Vig KW; Rashid RG; Firestone AR
    Angle Orthod; 2004 Jun; 74(3):298-303. PubMed ID: 15264638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning.
    Gül Amuk N; Karsli E; Kurt G
    Int Orthod; 2019 Mar; 17(1):151-158. PubMed ID: 30772351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Comparing the reliability and accuracy of clinical measurements using plaster model and the digital model system based on crowding severity.
    Liang YM; Rutchakitprakarn L; Kuang SH; Wu TY
    J Chin Med Assoc; 2018 Sep; 81(9):842-847. PubMed ID: 29395944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Intra- and inter-examiner reliability of intraoral malocclusion assessment.
    Ovsenik M; Farcnik F; Verdenik I
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Feb; 29(1):88-94. PubMed ID: 17290020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Predicting first molar width using virtual models of dental arches.
    Lee SP; Delong R; Hodges JS; Hayashi K; Lee JB
    Clin Anat; 2008 Jan; 21(1):27-32. PubMed ID: 18092365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.