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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32192440)

  • 1. The application and accuracy of feature matching on automated cephalometric superimposition.
    Jiang Y; Song G; Yu X; Dou Y; Li Q; Liu S; Han B; Xu T
    BMC Med Imaging; 2020 Mar; 20(1):31. PubMed ID: 32192440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of hand-traced and computer-based cephalometric superimpositions.
    Huja SS; Grubaugh EL; Rummel AM; Fields HW; Beck FM
    Angle Orthod; 2009 May; 79(3):428-35. PubMed ID: 19413396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of hand-traced and computerized cephalograms: landmark identification, measurement, and superimposition accuracy.
    Roden-Johnson D; English J; Gallerano R
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Apr; 133(4):556-64. PubMed ID: 18405820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The accuracy of cephalometric tracing superimposition.
    Gliddon MJ; Xia JJ; Gateno J; Wong HT; Lasky RE; Teichgraeber JF; Jia X; Liebschner MA; Lemoine JJ
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Feb; 64(2):194-202. PubMed ID: 16413890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Radiographic evaluation of orthodontic treatment by means of four different cephalometric superimposition methods.
    Lenza MA; Carvalho AA; Lenza EB; Lenza MG; Torres HM; Souza JB
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2015; 20(3):29-36. PubMed ID: 26154453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of 3-dimensional superimposition techniques on various skeletal structures of the head using surface models.
    Gkantidis N; Schauseil M; Pazera P; Zorkun B; Katsaros C; Ludwig B
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(2):e0118810. PubMed ID: 25706151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Improved lateral cephalometric superimposition using an automated image fitting technique.
    Larson BE; Sievers MM; Ko CC
    Angle Orthod; 2010 May; 80(3):474-9. PubMed ID: 20050739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy and reliability of landmark-based, surface-based and voxel-based 3D cone-beam computed tomography superimposition methods.
    Ghoneima A; Cho H; Farouk K; Kula K
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2017 Nov; 20(4):227-236. PubMed ID: 28960842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Evaluation of an automated superimposition method for computer-aided cephalometrics.
    Moon JH; Hwang HW; Lee SJ
    Angle Orthod; 2020 May; 90(3):390-396. PubMed ID: 33378429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Fully Automatic System for Accurate Localisation and Analysis of Cephalometric Landmarks in Lateral Cephalograms.
    Lindner C; Wang CW; Huang CT; Li CH; Chang SW; Cootes TF
    Sci Rep; 2016 Sep; 6():33581. PubMed ID: 27645567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Developing an automatic lateral cephalometric landmark identification program and evaluating its performance.
    Rakhshan V; Rakhshan H; Sheibaninia A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2009; 12(4):327-43. PubMed ID: 20108870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry.
    Chen YJ; Chen SK; Yao JC; Chang HF
    Angle Orthod; 2004 Apr; 74(2):155-61. PubMed ID: 15132440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reliability of cephalometric superimposition for the assessment of craniofacial changes: a systematic review.
    Graf CC; Dritsas K; Ghamri M; Gkantidis N
    Eur J Orthod; 2022 Sep; 44(5):477-490. PubMed ID: 35175333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks by a designed software.
    Shahidi Sh; Oshagh M; Gozin F; Salehi P; Danaei SM
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(1):20110187. PubMed ID: 23236215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs.
    Bruntz LQ; Palomo JM; Baden S; Hans MG
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Sep; 130(3):340-8. PubMed ID: 16979492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cephalometric superimposition on the cranial base: a review and a comparison of four methods.
    Ghafari J; Engel FE; Laster LL
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1987 May; 91(5):403-13. PubMed ID: 3472459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.