130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21055590)
1. Reliability and the smallest detectable differences of lateral cephalometric measurements.
Damstra J; Huddleston Slater JJ; Fourie Z; Ren Y
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Nov; 138(5):546.e1-8; discussion 546-7. PubMed ID: 21055590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
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. 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]
5. A three-dimensional cephalometric analysis.
Cho HJ
J Clin Orthod; 2009 Apr; 43(4):235-52, discussion 235; quiz 273. PubMed ID: 19458456
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The effects of overbite on the maxillary and mandibular morphology.
Ceylan I; Eröz UB
Angle Orthod; 2001 Apr; 71(2):110-5. PubMed ID: 11302586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. A comparative study of cephalometric and arch width characteristics of Class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusions.
Isik F; Nalbantgil D; Sayinsu K; Arun T
Eur J Orthod; 2006 Apr; 28(2):179-83. PubMed ID: 16431898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Intraexaminer and interexaminer reliabilities of landmark identification on digitized lateral cephalograms and formatted 3-dimensional cone-beam computerized tomography images.
Lagravère MO; Low C; Flores-Mir C; Chung R; Carey JP; Heo G; Major PW
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 May; 137(5):598-604. PubMed ID: 20451778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Glenoid fossa position in Class II malocclusion associated with mandibular retrusion.
Giuntini V; De Toffol L; Franchi L; Baccetti T
Angle Orthod; 2008 Sep; 78(5):808-12. PubMed ID: 18298205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Third molar agenesis and craniofacial morphology.
Sánchez MJ; Vicente A; Bravo LA
Angle Orthod; 2009 May; 79(3):473-8. PubMed ID: 19413395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Validity and reliability of a new edge-based computerized method for identification of cephalometric landmarks.
Kazandjian S; Kiliaridis S; Mavropoulos A
Angle Orthod; 2006 Jul; 76(4):619-24. PubMed ID: 16808568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Reliability of cephalometric analysis using manual and interactive computer methods.
Davis DN; Mackay F
Br J Orthod; 1991 May; 18(2):105-9. PubMed ID: 1911687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A critical evaluation of the pitchfork analysis.
Männchen R
Eur J Orthod; 2001 Feb; 23(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 11296506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A three-dimensional comparison of a morphometric and conventional cephalometric midsagittal planes for craniofacial asymmetry.
Damstra J; Fourie Z; De Wit M; Ren Y
Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Feb; 16(1):285-94. PubMed ID: 21271348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of soft and hard tissue profiles of orthognathic surgery patients treated recently and 20 years earlier.
Papadopoulos MA; Lazaridou-Terzoudi T; Øland J; Athanasiou AE; Melsen B
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Jul; 108(1):e8-13. PubMed ID: 19540447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cephalometric analysis of pharyngeal airway space dimensions in Turner syndrome.
Eklund M; Kotilainen J; Evälahti M; Waltimo-Sirén J
Eur J Orthod; 2012 Apr; 34(2):219-25. PubMed ID: 22275513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Reproducibility of cephalometric measurements made by three radiology clinics.
da Silveira HL; Silveira HE
Angle Orthod; 2006 May; 76(3):394-9. PubMed ID: 16637717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Measurements from conventional, digital and CT-derived cephalograms: a comparative study.
Ghoneima A; Albarakati S; Baysal A; Uysal T; Kula K
Aust Orthod J; 2012 Nov; 28(2):232-9. PubMed ID: 23304973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Correlation between 3-dimensional facial morphology and mandibular movement during maximum mouth opening and closing.
Kim DS; Choi SC; Lee SS; Heo MS; Huh KH; Hwang SJ; Yi WJ
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Nov; 110(5):648-56. PubMed ID: 20955952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
