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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28793813)

  • 1. Manual tracing versus smartphone application (app) tracing: a comparative study.
    Sayar G; Kilinc DD
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2017 Nov; 75(8):588-594. PubMed ID: 28793813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Comparative Evaluation of Digital Cephalometric Tracing Applications on Mobile Devices and Manual Tracing.
    Hassan MM; Alfaifi WH; Qaysi AM; Alfaifi AA; AlGhafli ZM; Mattoo KA; Daghriri SM; Hawthan LM; Daghriri RM; Moafa AA; Al Moaleem MM
    Med Sci Monit; 2024 Jun; 30():e944628. PubMed ID: 38909276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Therapeutic evaluation of the correction of the severe bi-maxillary protrusion cases by Tweed-Merrifield technique].
    Huang JQ; Liu SY; Jiang JH
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2016 Jun; 48(3):555-61. PubMed ID: 27318924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. The reliability and reproducibility of an Android cephalometric smartphone application in comparison with the conventional method.
    Zamrik OM; İşeri H
    Angle Orthod; 2021 Mar; 91(2):236-242. PubMed ID: 33367490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation and comparison of smartphone application tracing, web based artificial intelligence tracing and conventional hand tracing methods.
    Kılınç DD; Kırcelli BH; Sadry S; Karaman A
    J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Nov; 123(6):e906-e915. PubMed ID: 35901950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique.
    Santoro M; Jarjoura K; Cangialosi TJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Mar; 129(3):345-51. PubMed ID: 16527629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. A comparison of cephalometric measurements: a picture archiving and communication system versus the hand-tracing method--a preliminary study.
    Singh P; Davies TI
    Eur J Orthod; 2011 Aug; 33(4):350-3. PubMed ID: 20923935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Radiographic evaluation of orthodontic treatment by means of four different cephalometric superimposition methods.
    Lenza MA; Carvalho AA; Lenza EB; Lenza MG; Torres HM; Souza JB
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2015; 20(3):29-36. PubMed ID: 26154453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparing a Fully Automated Cephalometric Tracing Method to a Manual Tracing Method for Orthodontic Diagnosis.
    Tsolakis IA; Tsolakis AI; Elshebiny T; Matthaios S; Palomo JM
    J Clin Med; 2022 Nov; 11(22):. PubMed ID: 36431331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. A comparative evaluation of concordance and speed between smartphone app-based and artificial intelligence web-based cephalometric tracing software with the manual tracing method: A cross-sectional study.
    Gupta S; Shetty S; Natarajan S; Nambiar S; Mv A; Agarwal S
    J Clin Exp Dent; 2024 Jan; 16(1):e11-e17. PubMed ID: 38314342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy of Manual and Virtual Predictive Tracings in Patients Submitted to Orthognathic Surgery.
    Gorla LFO; Dos Santos JC; Carvalho PHA; Hochuli-Vieira E; Gabrielli MAC
    J Craniofac Surg; 2023 Jun; 34(4):1165-1169. PubMed ID: 36253326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. A comparison of cephalometric measurements obtained using conventional and digital methods.
    Vithanaarachchi N; Chandrasiri A; Nawarathna L
    Ceylon Med J; 2020 Sep; 65(3):39-45. PubMed ID: 34800930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Steiner's cephalometric norms for the Nepalese population.
    Sharma JN
    J Orthod; 2011 Mar; 38(1):21-31. PubMed ID: 21367825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Picture archiving and communications systems: a study of reliability of orthodontic cephalometric analysis.
    Tan SS; Ahmad S; Moles DR; Cunningham SJ
    Eur J Orthod; 2011 Oct; 33(5):537-43. PubMed ID: 21106665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.