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 *

145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33378429)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. A Superimposition-Based Cephalometric Method to Quantitate Craniofacial Changes.
    Al-Taai N; Levring Jäghagen E; Persson M; Ransjö M; Westerlund A
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 May; 18(10):. PubMed ID: 34069290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Longitudinal growth changes of the cranial base from puberty to adulthood. A comparison of different superimposition methods.
    Arat ZM; Türkkahraman H; English JD; Gallerano RL; Boley JC
    Angle Orthod; 2010 Jul; 80(4):537-44. PubMed ID: 20482360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of AudaxCeph®'s fully automated cephalometric tracing technology to a semi-automated approach by human examiners.
    Ristau B; Coreil M; Chapple A; Armbruster P; Ballard R
    Int Orthod; 2022 Dec; 20(4):100691. PubMed ID: 36114136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reliability of cephalometric landmark identification on three-dimensional computed tomographic images.
    Kim JH; An S; Hwang DM
    Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Apr; 60(3):320-325. PubMed ID: 34690019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Factors influencing superimposition error of 3D cephalometric landmarks by plane orientation method using 4 reference points: 4 point superimposition error regression model.
    Hwang JJ; Kim KD; Park H; Park CS; Jeong HG
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(11):e110665. PubMed ID: 25372707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Cephalometric superimposition on the occipital condyles as a longitudinal growth assessment reference: I-point and I-curve.
    Standerwick R; Roberts E; Hartsfield J; Babler W; Kanomi R
    Anat Rec (Hoboken); 2008 Dec; 291(12):1603-10. PubMed ID: 18833570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessment of automatic cephalometric landmark identification using artificial intelligence.
    Bulatova G; Kusnoto B; Grace V; Tsay TP; Avenetti DM; Sanchez FJC
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2021 Dec; 24 Suppl 2():37-42. PubMed ID: 34842346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks when undertaking a three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis.
    Zamora N; Llamas JM; Cibrián R; Gandia JL; Paredes V
    Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal; 2012 Jul; 17(4):e678-88. PubMed ID: 22322503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo.
    Chien PC; Parks ET; Eraso F; Hartsfield JK; Roberts WE; Ofner S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Jul; 38(5):262-73. PubMed ID: 19474253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The displacement of craniofacial reference landmarks during puberty: a comparison of three superimposition methods.
    Arat ZM; Rübendüz M; Akgül AA
    Angle Orthod; 2003 Aug; 73(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 12940557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Automated identification of cephalometric landmarks:
    Hwang HW; Park JH; Moon JH; Yu Y; Kim H; Her SB; Srinivasan G; Aljanabi MNA; Donatelli RE; Lee SJ
    Angle Orthod; 2020 Jan; 90(1):69-76. PubMed ID: 31335162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks.
    Liu JK; Chen YT; Cheng KS
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Nov; 118(5):535-40. PubMed ID: 11094367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.