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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33367490)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods.
    Albarakati SF; Kula KS; Ghoneima AA
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2012 Jan; 41(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 22184624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Evaluation of accuracy and reliability of OneCeph digital cephalometric analysis in comparison with manual cephalometric analysis-a cross-sectional study.
    Mohan A; Sivakumar A; Nalabothu P
    BDJ Open; 2021 Jun; 7(1):22. PubMed ID: 34140466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Concurrent validity and reliability of cephalometric analysis using smartphone apps and computer software.
    Livas C; Delli K; Spijkervet FKL; Vissink A; Dijkstra PU
    Angle Orthod; 2019 Nov; 89(6):889-896. PubMed ID: 31282737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis.
    Goracci C; Ferrari M
    Angle Orthod; 2014 May; 84(3):437-42. PubMed ID: 24160993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Evaluation and comparison of smartphone application tracing, web based artificial intelligence tracing and conventional hand tracing methods.
    Kılınç DD; Kırcelli BH; Sadry S; Karaman A
    J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Nov; 123(6):e906-e915. PubMed ID: 35901950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Comparison of landmark identification and linear and angular measurements in conventional and digital cephalometry.
    Akhare PJ; Dagab AM; Alle RS; Shenoyd U; Garla V
    Int J Comput Dent; 2013; 16(3):241-54. PubMed ID: 24364195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of Cephalometric Measurements Performed on Smartphone-Based Application and Computer-Based Imaging Software: A Comparative Study.
    Chugh VK; Bhatia NK; Shastri D; Shankar SP; Singh S; Sardana R
    Turk J Orthod; 2023 Jun; 36(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 37346006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of image enhancement on reliability of landmark identification in digital cephalometry.
    Oshagh M; Shahidi SH; Danaei SH
    Indian J Dent Res; 2013; 24(1):98-103. PubMed ID: 23852241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparative Evaluation of Digital Cephalometric Tracing Applications on Mobile Devices and Manual Tracing.
    Hassan MM; Alfaifi WH; Qaysi AM; Alfaifi AA; AlGhafli ZM; Mattoo KA; Daghriri SM; Hawthan LM; Daghriri RM; Moafa AA; Al Moaleem MM
    Med Sci Monit; 2024 Jun; 30():e944628. PubMed ID: 38909276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of cephalometric measurements obtained using conventional and digital methods.
    Vithanaarachchi N; Chandrasiri A; Nawarathna L
    Ceylon Med J; 2020 Sep; 65(3):39-45. PubMed ID: 34800930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods.
    Ongkosuwito EM; Katsaros C; van 't Hof MA; Bodegom JC; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
    Eur J Orthod; 2002 Dec; 24(6):655-65. PubMed ID: 12512783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.