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 *

96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2746388)

  • 1. Comparison of soft-tissue enhanced and conventional cephalometric radiographs.
    Bunel K; Schow SR
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1989 Aug; 47(8):804-7. PubMed ID: 2746388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Faster screen/film combinations for cephalometric radiography.
    Hurlburt CE
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1981 Dec; 52(6):661-5. PubMed ID: 6947192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Quantitative assessment of image quality using niobium filtration for cephalometric radiography.
    Wakoh M; Farman AG; Nishikawa K; Kuroyangi K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1994 May; 23(2):73-5. PubMed ID: 7835506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The evaluation of high-speed screen/film combinations in cephalometric radiography.
    Kimura K; Langland OE; Biggerstaff RH
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1987 Dec; 92(6):484-91. PubMed ID: 3479894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Fitting of the reconstructed craniofacial hard and soft tissues based on 2-D digital radiographs].
    Feng YP; Qiao M; Zhou H; Zhang YN; Si XQ
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2017 Feb; 26(1):59-63. PubMed ID: 28474068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of rare earth intensifying screens in cephalometric radiography.
    Stathopoulos V; Poulton DR
    Angle Orthod; 1990; 60(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 2180348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Imaging characteristics of new screen/film systems for cephalometric radiography.
    Fatouros PP; Gibbs SJ; Skubic SE; Rao GU
    Angle Orthod; 1984 Jan; 54(1):36-54. PubMed ID: 6584050
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [X-ray cephalometric characteristic of face soft tissue profile in orthognatic bite].
    Zhulev EN; Marakhtanov NB
    Stomatologiia (Mosk); 2007; 86(4):67-70. PubMed ID: 17828100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical comparison of conventional and rare earth screen-film systems for cephalometric radiographs.
    Kaugars GE; Fatouros P
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1982 Mar; 53(3):322-5. PubMed ID: 6950349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs, Part 2: Image quality.
    Forsyth DB; Shaw WC; Richmond S; Roberts CT
    Angle Orthod; 1996; 66(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 8678345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A critical appraisal of measurement of the soft tissue outline using photographs and video.
    Benson PE; Richmond S
    Eur J Orthod; 1997 Aug; 19(4):397-409. PubMed ID: 9308261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A dual sensitivity screen system for TMJ image enhancement in cephalometric radiography: sensitometric evaluation.
    Wakoh M; Farman AG; Nishikawa K; Kuroyanagi K; Scarfe WC; Braun S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Aug; 24(3):191-4. PubMed ID: 8617394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of the injured cervical spine: comparison of conventional and storage phosphor radiography with a hybrid cassette.
    Wilson AJ; Mann FA; West OC; McEnery KW; Murphy WA
    Radiology; 1994 Nov; 193(2):419-22. PubMed ID: 7972756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Digital image processing in cephalometric analysis.
    Jäger A; Döler W; Schormann T
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 1989; 99(1):19-23. PubMed ID: 2913641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Perceptibility of details in conventional and digital teleradiography--a comparative study].
    Ruppenthal T; Doll G; Sergl HG; Fricke B
    Orthod Fr; 1991; 62 Pt 3():1033-42. PubMed ID: 1842243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparison of the accuracy of cephalometric landmark location between two screen/film combinations.
    Stirrups DR
    Angle Orthod; 1989; 59(3):211-5. PubMed ID: 2774297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The application of photographic subtraction in longitudinal cephalometric growth studies.
    McWilliam JS
    Eur J Orthod; 1982 Feb; 4(1):29-36. PubMed ID: 7040088
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs.
    van Vlijmen OJ; Bergé SJ; Swennen GR; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Jan; 67(1):92-7. PubMed ID: 19070753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Computerized digital enhancement in craniofacial cephalometric radiography.
    Eppley BL; Sadove AM
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1991 Oct; 49(10):1038-43. PubMed ID: 1890516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.