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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31294411)

  • 1. Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and OnyxCeph™ Dental Software Measurements on Cephalometric Radiography.
    İzgi E; Pekiner FN
    Turk J Orthod; 2019 Jun; 32(2):87-95. PubMed ID: 31294411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. [Orthodonticorthognathic treatment stability in skeletal class III malocclusion patients].
    Wang XJ; Zhang YM; Zhou YH
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2019 Feb; 51(1):86-92. PubMed ID: 30773550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Comparative evaluation of cephalometric measurements of monitor-displayed images by Nemoceph software and its hard copy by manual tracing.
    Tikku T; Khanna R; Maurya RP; Srivastava K; Bhushan R
    J Oral Biol Craniofac Res; 2014; 4(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 25737917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Preciseness of artificial intelligence for lateral cephalometric measurements.
    El-Dawlatly M; Attia KH; Abdelghaffar AY; Mostafa YA; Abd El-Ghafour M
    J Orofac Orthop; 2024 May; 85(Suppl 1):27-33. PubMed ID: 36894679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of fully automated cephalometric measurements obtained from web-based artificial intelligence driven platform.
    Mahto RK; Kafle D; Giri A; Luintel S; Karki A
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Apr; 22(1):132. PubMed ID: 35440037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings.
    Meriç P; Naoumova J
    Turk J Orthod; 2020 Sep; 33(3):142-149. PubMed ID: 32974059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs.
    Erkan M; Gurel HG; Nur M; Demirel B
    Eur J Orthod; 2012 Jun; 34(3):318-21. PubMed ID: 21502380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Assessing the Reliability of Digitalized Cephalometric Analysis in Comparison with Manual Cephalometric Analysis.
    Farooq MU; Khan MA; Imran S; Sameera A; Qureshi A; Ahmed SA; Kumar S; Rahman MA
    J Clin Diagn Res; 2016 Oct; 10(10):ZC20-ZC23. PubMed ID: 27891451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Comparison of cephalometric measurements between conventional and automatic cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural network.
    Jeon S; Lee KC
    Prog Orthod; 2021 May; 22(1):14. PubMed ID: 34056670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Reliability of mobile application-based cephalometric analysis for chair side evaluation of orthodontic patient in clinical practice.
    Barbhuiya MH; Kumar P; Thakral R; Krishnapriya R; Bawa M
    J Orthod Sci; 2021; 10():16. PubMed ID: 34568212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo.
    Oz U; Orhan K; Abe N
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2011 Dec; 40(8):492-500. PubMed ID: 22065798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.