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 *

211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29308854)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Assessing the influence of lower facial profile convexity on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician, and layperson.
    Naini FB; Donaldson AN; McDonald F; Cobourne MT
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2012 Sep; 114(3):303-11. PubMed ID: 22883980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Factors influencing the perception of profile beauty in Class III dental compensation: A comparative cross-sectional study according to three categories of assessors.
    El Khoury K; Ghoubril J; Kassis A; Khoury E
    Int Orthod; 2023 Sep; 21(3):100784. PubMed ID: 37331196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Contribution of the mandible position to the facial profile perception of a female facial profile: An eye-tracking study.
    Huang P; Cai B; Zhou C; Wang W; Wang X; Gao D; Bao B
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2019 Nov; 156(5):641-652. PubMed ID: 31677673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of Class II functional treatment on facial attractiveness, as perceived by professionals and laypeople.
    Santori F; Masedu F; Ciavarella D; Staderini E; Chimenti C; Tepedino M
    Sci Rep; 2021 Jul; 11(1):13989. PubMed ID: 34234201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The ability of orthodontists and laypeople to discriminate mandibular stepwise advancements in a Class II retrognathic mandible.
    Barroso MC; Silva NC; Quintão CC; Normando D
    Prog Orthod; 2012 Sep; 13(2):141-7. PubMed ID: 23021117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Attractiveness of facial profiles as rated by individuals with different levels of education.
    Hönn M; Dietz K; Eiselt ML; Göz G
    J Orofac Orthop; 2008 Jan; 69(1):20-30. PubMed ID: 18213458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Profile changes in orthodontic patients treated with mandibular advancement surgery.
    Tsang ST; McFadden LR; Wiltshire WA; Pershad N; Baker AB
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jan; 135(1):66-72. PubMed ID: 19121503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparison of providers' and consumers' perceptions of facial-profile attractiveness.
    Maple JR; Vig KW; Beck FM; Larsen PE; Shanker S
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Dec; 128(6):690-6; quiz 801. PubMed ID: 16360907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Orthodontists and lay people rate masculine soft tissue profiles similarly but feminine soft tissue profiles differently.
    Einy S; Miri T; Katzhendler E; Aizenbud D; Emanuela K; Zaslansky P
    Quintessence Int; 2021; 52(1):72-79. PubMed ID: 32954390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Attractiveness assessment by orthodontists and laypeople judging female profile modifications of Class II Division 1 malocclusion.
    Kalin K; Iskender SY; Kuitert R
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2021 Aug; 160(2):276-282. PubMed ID: 34006425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluations of the facial attractiveness of young women with severe maxillary anterior crowding by orthodontists and laypeople with and without orthodontic treatment experience in Japan.
    Yabe A; Ikoma M; Arai K
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2021 Jun; 159(6):750-757. PubMed ID: 33888377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Facial profile preferences, self-awareness and perception among groups of people in the United Arab Emirates.
    Al Taki A; Guidoum A
    J Orthod Sci; 2014 Apr; 3(2):55-61. PubMed ID: 24987664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Perception of facial esthetics by different observer groups of Class II malocclusion with mandibular retrusion.
    Ribas J; Paço M; Pinho T
    Int J Esthet Dent; 2018; 13(2):208-219. PubMed ID: 29687099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Esthetic perceptions of facial silhouettes after treatment with a mandibular protraction appliance.
    Molina de Paula EC; de Castro Ferreira Conti AC; Siqueira DF; Valarelli DP; de Almeida-Pedrin RR
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2017 Feb; 151(2):311-316. PubMed ID: 28153160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Class II malocclusion: mandibular retrusion or maxillary protrusion?
    Rosenblum RE
    Angle Orthod; 1995; 65(1):49-62. PubMed ID: 7726463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessing the influence of chin prominence on perceived attractiveness in the orthognathic patient, clinician and layperson.
    Naini FB; Donaldson AN; McDonald F; Cobourne MT
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Jul; 41(7):839-46. PubMed ID: 22340990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Impact of facial components on the attractiveness of face: A perception-based study.
    Parul P; Kumar M; Goyal M; Mishra S; Shaha K; Abrar M
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2022 Nov; 162(5):e218-e229. PubMed ID: 36031510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.