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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30166870)

  • 1. Comparison of popular sagittal cephalometric analyses for validity and reliability.
    Qamaruddin I; Alam MK; Shahid F; Tanveer S; Umer M; Amin E
    Saudi Dent J; 2018 Jan; 30(1):43-46. PubMed ID: 30166870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Correlation of Dental and Skeletal Malocclusions in Sagittal Plane among Saudi Orthodontic Patients.
    Al-Hamlan N; Al-Eissa B; Al-Hiyasat AS; Albalawi FS; Ahmed AE
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2015 May; 16(5):353-9. PubMed ID: 26162253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparative assessment of sagittal skeletal discrepancy: a cephalometric study.
    Aparna P; Kumar DN; Prasad M; Shamnur N; G AK; K R S; B R GK; Gupta N
    J Clin Diagn Res; 2015 Apr; 9(4):ZC38-41. PubMed ID: 26023641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of different cephalometric analyses in the diagnosis of class III malocclusion in Saudi and Yemeni population.
    Alassiry AM
    J Orthod Sci; 2020; 9():14. PubMed ID: 33354540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Diagnostic validity of different cephalometric analyses for assessment of the sagittal skeletal pattern.
    Ahmed M; Shaikh A; Fida M
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2018; 23(5):75-81. PubMed ID: 30427496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Floating norms for individualising the ANB angle and the WITS appraisal in orthodontic cephalometric analysis based on guiding variables.
    Paddenberg E; Proff P; Kirschneck C
    J Orofac Orthop; 2023 Jan; 84(1):10-18. PubMed ID: 34255093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Predictability and Reliability of Different Anterio-Posterior Skeletal Discrepancy Indicators in Different Age Groups - A Cephalometric Study.
    Tiwari R; Shyagali TR; Gupta A; Joshi R; Tiwari A; Sen P
    J Clin Diagn Res; 2016 Sep; 10(9):ZC80-ZC84. PubMed ID: 27790586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Cephalometric study to test the reliability of anteroposterior skeletal discrepancy indicators using the twin block appliance.
    Trivedi R; Bhattacharya A; Mehta F; Patel D; Parekh H; Gandhi V
    Prog Orthod; 2015 Feb; 16():3. PubMed ID: 25769138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Establishment of norms of the beta angle to assess the sagittal discrepancy for Nellore district population.
    Prasad M; Reddy KP; Talapaneni AK; Chaitanya N; Bhaskar Reddy MV; Patil R
    J Nat Sci Biol Med; 2013 Jul; 4(2):409-13. PubMed ID: 24082742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The wits appraisal using three reference planes and its interaction with the ANB angle among a sub-set of Nigerians".
    Ifesanya JU; Adeyemi AT; Otuyemi OD
    Afr J Med Med Sci; 2014 Sep; 43(3):225-30. PubMed ID: 26223140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison between cephalometric classification methods for sagittal jaw relationships.
    Hurmerinta K; Rahkamo A; Haavikko K
    Eur J Oral Sci; 1997 Jun; 105(3):221-7. PubMed ID: 9249188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A new sagittal dysplasia indicator: the YEN angle.
    Neela PK; Mascarenhas R; Husain A
    World J Orthod; 2009; 10(2):147-51. PubMed ID: 19582259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of Beta and ANB Angles for Evaluation of Sagittal Skeletal Discrepancy: A Cephalometric Study.
    Jajoo A; Agarkar SS; Sharma S; Gadhiya N; Sonawane S; Narkhede S
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Jun; 19(6):739-742. PubMed ID: 29959305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 3D cephalometry on reduced FOV CBCT: skeletal class assessment through AF-BF on Frankfurt plane-validity and reliability through comparison with 2D measurements.
    Farronato M; Maspero C; Abate A; Grippaudo C; Connelly ST; Tartaglia GM
    Eur Radiol; 2020 Nov; 30(11):6295-6302. PubMed ID: 32382843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Tau Angle: A New Approach for Assessment of True Sagittal Maxillomandibular Relationship.
    Gupta P; Singh N; Tripathi T; Gopal R; Rai P
    Int J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2020; 13(5):497-500. PubMed ID: 33623336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Reliability of Beta angle in assessing true anteroposterior apical base discrepancy in different growth patterns.
    Sundareswaran S; Kumar V
    J Nat Sci Biol Med; 2015; 6(1):125-30. PubMed ID: 25810649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.