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 *

188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26154461)

  • 21. Photometric analysis of esthetically pleasant and unpleasant facial profile.
    Fortes HN; Guimarães TC; Belo IM; da Matta EN
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2014; 19(2):66-75. PubMed ID: 24945516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Professional assessment of facial profile attractiveness.
    Soh J; Chew MT; Wong HB
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Aug; 128(2):201-5. PubMed ID: 16102405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Differences in facial profile and dental esthetic perceptions between young adults and orthodontists.
    Yin L; Jiang M; Chen W; Smales RJ; Wang Q; Tang L
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Jun; 145(6):750-6. PubMed ID: 24880845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Self-perception of the facial profile: an aid in treatment planning for orthognathic surgery.
    Bullen RN; Kook YA; Kim K; Park JH
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2014 Apr; 72(4):773-8. PubMed ID: 24342575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Esthetic preferences of European American, Hispanic American, Japanese, and African judges for soft-tissue profiles.
    Nomura M; Motegi E; Hatch JP; Gakunga PT; Ng'ang'a PM; Rugh JD; Yamaguchi H
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Apr; 135(4 Suppl):S87-95. PubMed ID: 19362272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Facial attractiveness of skeletal class I and class II malocclusion as perceived by laypeople, patients and clinicians.
    Pace M; Cioffi I; D'antò V; Valletta A; Valletta R; Amato M
    Minerva Stomatol; 2018 Jun; 67(3):77-85. PubMed ID: 29308854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Facial profile preferences: a cross-sectional survey].
    Hélou ME; Kassis A; Haddad R; Ghoubril J
    Orthod Fr; 2016 Sep; 87(3):341-346. PubMed ID: 27726842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. What do black patients expect from orthodontic treatment? The aesthetic perception of facial profile between orthodontists and black laypersons.
    Souza DB; Oliveira AI; Gouvêa GR; Santamaria-Jr M
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2022; 27(4):e2220519. PubMed ID: 36074432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The perception of facial aesthetics in a young Spanish population.
    Macías Gago AB; Romero Maroto M; Crego A
    Eur J Orthod; 2012 Jun; 34(3):335-9. PubMed ID: 21447783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of African American profile esthetics.
    Hockley A; Weinstein M; Borislow AJ; Braitman LE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Feb; 141(2):161-8. PubMed ID: 22284283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Perception of facial profiles: influence of female sex hormones and personality traits.
    Jovic T; Pavlic A; Varga S; Kovacevic Pavicic D; Slaj M; Spalj S
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2016 Nov; 19(4):209-215. PubMed ID: 27650161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Esthetic preferences of orthodontists, oral surgeons, and laypersons for Persian facial profiles.
    Imani MM; Sanei E; Niaki EA; Shahroudi AS
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Sep; 154(3):412-420. PubMed ID: 30173845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The effects of forehead and neck position on esthetics of class I, II and III profiles.
    Salehi P; Oshagh M; Aleyasin ZS; Pakshir HR
    Int J Esthet Dent; 2014; 9(3):412-25. PubMed ID: 25126620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The effects of forehead and neck positions on profile esthetics.
    Oshagh M; Aleyasin ZS; Roeinpeikar M
    Eur J Esthet Dent; 2012; 7(4):454-66. PubMed ID: 23150873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effects of laterality on esthetic preferences of orthodontists, maxillofacial surgeons, and laypeople regarding the lip position and facial convexity: a psychometric clinical trial.
    Mousavi SM; Saeidi Ghorani P; Deilamani A; Rakhshan V
    Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2019 Dec; 23(4):439-451. PubMed ID: 31446526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Factors influencing attractiveness of soft tissue profile.
    Khosravanifard B; Rakhshan V; Raeesi E
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2013 Jan; 115(1):29-37. PubMed ID: 22858016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Prediction and assessment of facial profile after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery in skeletal Class III malocclusion].
    Shi QJ; Zhang Y; Deng F; Zheng H; Zhang H; Wang HQ
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2012 Oct; 21(5):556-62. PubMed ID: 23135188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of the frontal esthetic preferences in the lower facial portion of Koreans and Caucasians.
    Kang YG; Lee YH; Kook YA; Kim SH; Sinclair PM
    World J Orthod; 2009; 10(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 19582252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Soft tissue evaluation of contemporary Caucasian and African American female facial profiles.
    Sutter RE; Turley PK
    Angle Orthod; 1998 Dec; 68(6):487-96. PubMed ID: 9851345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Professionals' and laypersons' appreciation of various options for Class III surgical correction.
    Fabré M; Mossaz C; Christou P; Kiliaridis S
    Eur J Orthod; 2010 Aug; 32(4):395-402. PubMed ID: 19901039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.