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.
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]
4. 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]
8. The reliability of head film measurements. 3. Tracing superimposition. Baumrind S; Miller D; Molthen R Am J Orthod; 1976 Dec; 70(6):617-44. PubMed ID: 1069480 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Natural craniofacial changes in the third decade of life: a longitudinal study. Akgül AA; Toygar TU Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2002 Nov; 122(5):512-22. PubMed ID: 12439480 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of an automated superimposition method based on multiple landmarks for growing patients. Kim MG; Moon JH; Hwang HW; Cho SJ; Donatelli RE; Lee SJ Angle Orthod; 2022 Mar; 92(2):226-232. PubMed ID: 34605860 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The use of Bjork's indications of growth for evaluation of extremes of skeletal morphology. Davidovitch M; Eleftheriadi I; Kostaki A; Shpack N Eur J Orthod; 2016 Dec; 38(6):555-562. PubMed ID: 26609074 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [A cephalometric study of mandibular growth pattern in twins]. Kosovcević Z Bilt Udruz Ortodonata Jugosl; 1989; 22(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 2638171 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The technical reliability of superimposition on cranial base and mandibular structures. Buschang PH; LaPalme L; Tanguay R; Demirjian A Eur J Orthod; 1986 Aug; 8(3):152-6. PubMed ID: 3464439 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The incidence of mandibular third molar impactions in different skeletal face types. Breik O; Grubor D Aust Dent J; 2008 Dec; 53(4):320-4. PubMed ID: 19133947 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of 2- and 3-dimensional mandibular superimposition techniques against Björk's structural superimposition method. Franco CS; Sexton C; Flores-Mir C; Healey D Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2021 Mar; 159(3):e253-e273. PubMed ID: 33541785 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Cephalometric analysis using a template. Liebgott B Angle Orthod; 1978 Jul; 48(3):194-201. PubMed ID: 280127 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [A simplified technique for the clinical measurement of the Frankfort-mandibular plane angle]. Karkazis HC; Chai JY Hell Stomatol Chron; 1988; 32(3):169-73. PubMed ID: 3153695 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mandibular growth in subjects with infraoccluded deciduous molars: a superimposition study. Leonardi M; Armi P; Baccetti T; Franchi L; Caltabiano M Angle Orthod; 2005 Nov; 75(6):927-34. PubMed ID: 16448233 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]