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.
2. Assessing lower incisor inclination change: a comparison of four cephalometric methods. Jabbal A; Cobourne M; Donaldson N; Bister D Eur J Orthod; 2016 Apr; 38(2):184-9. PubMed ID: 25888531 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The validity of two methods of mandibular superimposition: a comparison with tantalum implants. Springate SD; Jones AG Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1998 Mar; 113(3):263-70. PubMed ID: 9517716 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Natural reference structures in the human mandible: a systematic search in children with tantalum implants. Springate SD Eur J Orthod; 2010 Aug; 32(4):354-62. PubMed ID: 20080959 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Influence of magnification and superimposition of structures on cephalometric diagnosis. Paula LK; Solon-de-Mello Pde A; Mattos CT; Ruellas AC; Sant'Anna EF Dental Press J Orthod; 2015; 20(2):29-34. PubMed ID: 25992984 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of extraction and non-extraction treatment effects by two different superimposition methods. Türköz Ç; İşcan HN Eur J Orthod; 2011 Dec; 33(6):691-9. PubMed ID: 21378094 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Thin-plate spline graphical analysis of the mandible in mandibular prognathism. Chang HF; Chang HP; Liu PH; Chang CH J Formos Med Assoc; 2002 Nov; 101(11):790-4. PubMed ID: 12517060 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The variability and reliability of two maxillary and mandibular superimposition techniques. Part II. Cook AH; Sellke TA; BeGole EA Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1994 Nov; 106(5):463-71. PubMed ID: 7977186 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Thin-plate spline (TPS) graphical analysis of the mandible on cephalometric radiographs. Chang HP; Liu PH; Chang HF; Chang CH Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Mar; 31(2):137-41. PubMed ID: 12076055 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A Superimposition-Based Cephalometric Method to Quantitate Craniofacial Changes. Al-Taai N; Levring Jäghagen E; Persson M; Ransjö M; Westerlund A Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 May; 18(10):. PubMed ID: 34069290 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
16. Identification of the cephalometric reference point condylion on lateral head films. Forsberg CM; Odenrick L Angle Orthod; 1989; 59(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 2729665 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The inter-relationship between mandibular autorotation and maxillary LeFort I impaction osteotomies. Wang YC; Ko EW; Huang CS; Chen YR J Craniofac Surg; 2006 Sep; 17(5):898-904. PubMed ID: 17003618 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Validity and reliability of a new edge-based computerized method for identification of cephalometric landmarks. Kazandjian S; Kiliaridis S; Mavropoulos A Angle Orthod; 2006 Jul; 76(4):619-24. PubMed ID: 16808568 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Longitudinal growth changes of the cranial base from puberty to adulthood. A comparison of different superimposition methods. Arat ZM; Türkkahraman H; English JD; Gallerano RL; Boley JC Angle Orthod; 2010 Jul; 80(4):537-44. PubMed ID: 20482360 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The human chin and its relationship to mandibular morphology. Haskell BS Angle Orthod; 1979 Jul; 49(3):153-66. PubMed ID: 290281 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]