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 *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29624856)

  • 21. Assessment and predictability of ANB angle.
    Chandra PK; Godfrey K
    Aust Orthod J; 1990 Mar; 11(3):173-7. PubMed ID: 2152434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Pattern of skeletal and dental malocclusions in Saudi orthodontic patients.
    Aldrees AM
    Saudi Med J; 2012 Mar; 33(3):315-20. PubMed ID: 22426914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. [Evaluation of Wits appraisal with superimposition method].
    Xu T; Ahn J; Baumrind S
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 1999 Jul; 34(4):211-3. PubMed ID: 11776907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Assessment of Gender Dimorphism on Sagittal Cephalometry in Pakistani Population.
    Qamruddin I; Alam MK; Shahid F; Tanveer S; Mukhtiar M; Asim Z
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2016 May; 26(5):390-3. PubMed ID: 27225144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Cephalometric and in vivo measurements of maxillomandibular anteroposterior discrepancies: a preliminary regression study.
    Ferrario VF; Serrao G; Ciusa V; Morini M; Sforza C
    Angle Orthod; 2002 Dec; 72(6):579-84. PubMed ID: 12518952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Why WITS? Why not a way beyond?
    Nagar S; Nagar R; Raghav P
    Contemp Clin Dent; 2014 Oct; 5(4):518-23. PubMed ID: 25395770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Overjet as a predictor of sagittal skeletal relationships.
    Zupancic S; Pohar M; Farcnik F; Ovsenik M
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Jun; 30(3):269-73. PubMed ID: 18540015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. To Check the Reliability of Various Cephalometric Parameters used for Predicting the Type of Malocclusions and Growth Patterns.
    Pawar RO; Mane DR; Patil CD; Bhalerao SV; Parkar AF; Agarwal S
    J Pharm Bioallied Sci; 2022 Jul; 14(Suppl 1):S808-S811. PubMed ID: 36110773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The influence of functional orthodontics and mandibular sagittal split advancement osteotomy on dental and skeletal variables--a comparative cephalometric study.
    Lohrmann B; Schwestka-Polly R; Nägerl H; Ihlow D; Kubein-Meesenburg D
    Eur J Orthod; 2006 Dec; 28(6):553-60. PubMed ID: 17142259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Reliability evaluation for thirteen parameters describing anteroposterior apical base relationship in Angle Class II division 1 patients].
    Liu DX; Zhang L; Wang CL; Zhang XY; Guo J
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2006 Aug; 24(4):323-7. PubMed ID: 16999351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Cephalometric differentiation between vertical and horizontal malocclusions in 122 Europeans using the Denture Frame Analysis and standard measurements. Differentiation between vertical and horizontal malocclusion.
    Celar AG; Freudenthaler JW; Schneider B
    J Orofac Orthop; 1999; 60(3):195-204. PubMed ID: 10394213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Cephalometric Floating Norms for the
    Perinetti G; Ceschi M; Scalia A; Contardo L
    Biomed Res Int; 2018; 2018():8740731. PubMed ID: 29850584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A randomized clinical trial to assess the sagittal effects of Transforce transverse appliance (TTA) and NiTi palatal expander (NPE) on skeletal class II malocclusion in growing patients during retention phase - A cephalometric study using a historical control group.
    Nagrik AP; Bhad WA; Chavan SJ; Doshi UH
    Int Orthod; 2020 Dec; 18(4):722-731. PubMed ID: 33020047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Cranial-base morphology in adults with skeletal Class III malocclusion.
    Sanggarnjanavanich S; Sekiya T; Nomura Y; Nakayama T; Hanada N; Nakamura Y
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Jul; 146(1):82-91. PubMed ID: 24975002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Clinical application of a method to correct angle ANB for geometric effects.
    Hussels W; Nanda RS
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1987 Dec; 92(6):506-10. PubMed ID: 3479897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A comparison of cephalometric analyses for assessing sagittal jaw relationship.
    Gul-e-Erum ; Fida M
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2008 Nov; 18(11):679-83. PubMed ID: 18983790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Three dimensional reliability analyses of currently used methods for assessment of sagittal jaw discrepancy.
    Almaqrami BS; Alhammadi MS; Cao B
    J Clin Exp Dent; 2018 Apr; 10(4):e352-e360. PubMed ID: 29750096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparable Skeletal and Dental Movements Achieved Using Conventional and Surgery-First Techniques in Class III Patients.
    Florentine C; Kimberly A; Mehta S; Kuo CL; Uribe F; Lottinger C
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Nov; 80(11):1747-1756. PubMed ID: 36076358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A study of Class III treatment: orthodontic camouflage vs orthognathic surgery.
    Georgalis K; Woods MG
    Aust Orthod J; 2015 Nov; 31(2):138-48. PubMed ID: 26999886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Longitudinal changes in the ANB angle and Wits appraisal: clinical implications.
    Bishara SE; Fahl JA; Peterson LC
    Am J Orthod; 1983 Aug; 84(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 6576637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.