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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21986654)

  • 1. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between double readings of clinical measurements.
    Vieira S; Corrente JE
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2011 Oct; 19(5):488-92. PubMed ID: 21986654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cephalometric landmarks identification and reproducibility: a meta analysis.
    Trpkova B; Major P; Prasad N; Nebbe B
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1997 Aug; 112(2):165-70. PubMed ID: 9267228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Orthodontic cephalometric X-rays overdone: a commentary.
    Friedman JW
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 Dec; 39(8):520. PubMed ID: 21062947
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Radiation reduction using a modified collimated lateral skull radiograph during orthodontic treatment.
    Mandall NA; O'Brien KD; Worthington HV
    Clin Orthod Res; 1999 Nov; 2(4):179-85. PubMed ID: 10806941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Accuracy of cephalometric landmarks on monitor-displayed radiographs with and without image emboss enhancement.
    Leonardi RM; Giordano D; Maiorana F; Greco M
    Eur J Orthod; 2010 Jun; 32(3):242-7. PubMed ID: 20022892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of cephalometric analysis using a non-radiographic sonic digitizer (DigiGraph Workstation) with conventional radiography.
    Tsang KH; Cooke MS
    Eur J Orthod; 1999 Feb; 21(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 10191573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. In vivo comparison of MRI- and CBCT-based 3D cephalometric analysis: beginning of a non-ionizing diagnostic era in craniomaxillofacial imaging?
    Juerchott A; Freudlsperger C; Weber D; Jende JME; Saleem MA; Zingler S; Lux CJ; Bendszus M; Heiland S; Hilgenfeld T
    Eur Radiol; 2020 Mar; 30(3):1488-1497. PubMed ID: 31802215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Volume Assessment of the Effect of Obturators on Facial Form Following Surgery for Head and Neck Cancer Using Stereophotogrammetry.
    Coward TJ; Richards R; Fenlon MR; Scott BJ
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Apr; 28(4):379-386. PubMed ID: 30793816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Prospective study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional and digital lateral headfilms.
    Hagemann K; Vollmer D; Niegel T; Ehmer U; Reuter I
    J Orofac Orthop; 2000; 61(2):91-9. PubMed ID: 10783561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison between 2D and 3D cephalometry on CBCT scans of human skulls.
    van Vlijmen OJ; Maal T; Bergé SJ; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 Feb; 39(2):156-60. PubMed ID: 20044238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparative assessment of cephalometric errors.
    Battagel JM
    Eur J Orthod; 1993 Aug; 15(4):305-14. PubMed ID: 8405136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Artificial intelligence in orthodontics : Evaluation of a fully automated cephalometric analysis using a customized convolutional neural network.
    Kunz F; Stellzig-Eisenhauer A; Zeman F; Boldt J
    J Orofac Orthop; 2020 Jan; 81(1):52-68. PubMed ID: 31853586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Prevalence of skeletal and dental anomalies and normal variants seen in cephalometric and other radiographs of orthodontic patients.
    Tetradis S; Kantor ML
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Nov; 116(5):572-7. PubMed ID: 10547519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A new methodology for automatic detection of reference points in 3D cephalometry: A pilot study.
    Ed-Dhahraouy M; Riri H; Ezzahmouly M; Bourzgui F; El Moutaoukkil A
    Int Orthod; 2018 Jun; 16(2):328-337. PubMed ID: 29628421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of cephalometric measurements from three radiological clinics.
    Gonçalves FA; Schiavon L; Pereira Neto JS; Nouer DF
    Braz Oral Res; 2006; 20(2):162-6. PubMed ID: 16878211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The comparison of clinical imaging devices with respect to parallel readings in both devices.
    Krummenauer F
    Eur J Med Res; 2006 Mar; 11(3):119-22. PubMed ID: 16751112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Matching repeatability and interdevice agreement of 2 intraoral spectrophotometers.
    Sarafianou A; Kamposiora P; Papavasiliou G; Goula H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Mar; 107(3):178-85. PubMed ID: 22385694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.