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 *

192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24055177)

  • 1. Is there consistency in cephalometric landmark identification amongst oral and maxillofacial surgeons?
    Miloro M; Borba AM; Ribeiro-Junior O; Naclério-Homem MG; Jungner M
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2014 Apr; 43(4):445-53. PubMed ID: 24055177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of image enhancement on reliability of landmark identification in digital cephalometry.
    Oshagh M; Shahidi SH; Danaei SH
    Indian J Dent Res; 2013; 24(1):98-103. PubMed ID: 23852241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. In vivo reliability of 3D cephalometric landmark determination on magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study.
    Juerchott A; Freudlsperger C; Zingler S; Saleem MA; Jende JME; Lux CJ; Bendszus M; Heiland S; Hilgenfeld T
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Mar; 24(3):1339-1349. PubMed ID: 31352517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy of landmark identification on postero-anterior cephalograms.
    Sicurezza E; Greco M; Giordano D; Maiorana F; Leonardi R
    Prog Orthod; 2012 Sep; 13(2):132-40. PubMed ID: 23021116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Assessment of the reliability and repeatability of landmarks using 3-D cephalometric software.
    Frongia G; Piancino MG; Bracco AA; Crincoli V; Debernardi CL; Bracco P
    Cranio; 2012 Oct; 30(4):255-63. PubMed ID: 23156966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Linear mandibular measurements: comparison between orthopantomograms and lateral cephalograms.
    Ongkosuwito EM; Dieleman MM; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM; Mulder PG; van Neck JW
    Cleft Palate Craniofac J; 2009 Mar; 46(2):147-53. PubMed ID: 19254052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. How Many Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons Does It Take to Perform Virtual Orthognathic Surgical Planning?
    Borba AM; Haupt D; de Almeida Romualdo LT; da Silva AL; da Graça Naclério-Homem M; Miloro M
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2016 Sep; 74(9):1807-26. PubMed ID: 27080045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of landmark identification and linear and angular measurements in conventional and digital cephalometry.
    Akhare PJ; Dagab AM; Alle RS; Shenoyd U; Garla V
    Int J Comput Dent; 2013; 16(3):241-54. PubMed ID: 24364195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reliability of cephalometric landmark identification on three-dimensional computed tomographic images.
    Kim JH; An S; Hwang DM
    Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Apr; 60(3):320-325. PubMed ID: 34690019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The accuracy of cephalometric tracing superimposition.
    Gliddon MJ; Xia JJ; Gateno J; Wong HT; Lasky RE; Teichgraeber JF; Jia X; Liebschner MA; Lemoine JJ
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Feb; 64(2):194-202. PubMed ID: 16413890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry.
    Chen YJ; Chen SK; Chang HF; Chen KC
    Angle Orthod; 2000 Oct; 70(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 11036999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: a comparative study.
    Durão AP; Morosolli A; Pittayapat P; Bolstad N; Ferreira AP; Jacobs R
    Imaging Sci Dent; 2015 Dec; 45(4):213-20. PubMed ID: 26730368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Automated cephalometric landmark detection with confidence regions using Bayesian convolutional neural networks.
    Lee JH; Yu HJ; Kim MJ; Kim JW; Choi J
    BMC Oral Health; 2020 Oct; 20(1):270. PubMed ID: 33028287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Are orthodontic landmarks and variables in digital cephalometric radiography taken in fixed and natural head positions reliable?
    Giannopoulou MA; Kondylidou-Sidira AC; Papadopoulos MA; Athanasiou AE
    Int Orthod; 2020 Mar; 18(1):54-68. PubMed ID: 31495758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo.
    Chien PC; Parks ET; Eraso F; Hartsfield JK; Roberts WE; Ofner S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Jul; 38(5):262-73. PubMed ID: 19474253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reliability of cranial base measurements on lateral skull radiographs.
    Arponen H; Elf H; Evälahti M; Waltimo-Sirén J
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2008 Nov; 11(4):201-10. PubMed ID: 18950316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of Soft Tissue Landmark Reliability between Manual and Computerized Plotting Methods.
    Kasinathan G; Kommi PB; Kumar SM; Yashwant A; Arani N; Sabapathy S
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2017 Apr; 18(4):317-321. PubMed ID: 28349911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of training and experience on cephalometric measurement errors on surgical patients.
    Lau PY; Cooke MS; Hägg U
    Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 1997; 12(3):204-13. PubMed ID: 9511491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.