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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34568212)

  • 21. Ceph-X: development and evaluation of 2D cephalometric system.
    Mosleh MA; Baba MS; Malek S; Almaktari RA
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Dec; 17(Suppl 19):499. PubMed ID: 28155649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. To Check the Reliability of Various Cephalometric Parameters used for Predicting the Type of Malocclusions and Growth Patterns.
    Pawar RO; Mane DR; Patil CD; Bhalerao SV; Parkar AF; Agarwal S
    J Pharm Bioallied Sci; 2022 Jul; 14(Suppl 1):S808-S811. PubMed ID: 36110773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Lateral Cephalometric Study in Adult Bulgarians with Normal Occlusion.
    Todorova-Plachiyska KG; Stoilova-Todorova MG
    Folia Med (Plovdiv); 2018 Mar; 60(1):141-146. PubMed ID: 29668455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparison of popular sagittal cephalometric analyses for validity and reliability.
    Qamaruddin I; Alam MK; Shahid F; Tanveer S; Umer M; Amin E
    Saudi Dent J; 2018 Jan; 30(1):43-46. PubMed ID: 30166870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. The relationship between 3D dentofacial photogrammetry measurements and traditional cephalometric measurements.
    Castillo JC; Gianneschi G; Azer D; Manosudprasit A; Haghi A; Bansal N; Allareddy V; Masoud MI
    Angle Orthod; 2019 Mar; 89(2):275-283. PubMed ID: 30779676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Comparative study of cephalometric measurements using 3 imaging modalities.
    Wen J; Liu S; Ye X; Xie X; Li J; Li H; Mei L
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2017 Dec; 148(12):913-921. PubMed ID: 29042006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A comparative analysis of angular cephalometric values between CBCT generated lateral cephalograms versus digitized conventional lateral cephalograms.
    Chung RR; Lagravere MO; Flores-Mir C; Heo G; Carey JP; Major PW
    Int Orthod; 2009 Dec; 7(4):308-21. PubMed ID: 20303918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique.
    Santoro M; Jarjoura K; Cangialosi TJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Mar; 129(3):345-51. PubMed ID: 16527629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A Study on the Evaluation of Pharyngeal Size in Different Skeletal Patterns: A Radiographic Study.
    Chokotiya H; Banthia A; K SR; Choudhary K; Sharma P; Awasthi N
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Oct; 19(10):1278-1283. PubMed ID: 30498186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Picture archiving and communications systems: a study of reliability of orthodontic cephalometric analysis.
    Tan SS; Ahmad S; Moles DR; Cunningham SJ
    Eur J Orthod; 2011 Oct; 33(5):537-43. PubMed ID: 21106665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Digital Cephalometric Tracings by PRO-CEPH V3 Software for Comparative Analyses of Vertical Dimension in Edentulous Patients.
    Sudhir N; Chittaranjan B; Kumar BA; Taruna M; Kumar MP; Reddy MR
    J Clin Diagn Res; 2015 May; 9(5):ZC01-5. PubMed ID: 26155550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Reliability and validity of MicroScribe-3DXL system in comparison with radiographic cephalometric system: Angular measurements.
    Barmou MM; Hussain SF; Abu Hassan MI
    Int Orthod; 2018 Jun; 16(2):314-327. PubMed ID: 29673688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The Reliability of Three-Dimensional Landmark-Based Craniomaxillofacial and Airway Cephalometric Analysis.
    Yao K; Xie Y; Xia L; Wei S; Yu W; Shen G
    Diagnostics (Basel); 2023 Jul; 13(14):. PubMed ID: 37510103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A method for defining targets in contemporary incisor inclination correction.
    Knösel M; Engelke W; Attin R; Kubein-Meesenburg D; Sadat-Khonsari R; Gripp-Rudolph L
    Eur J Orthod; 2008 Aug; 30(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 18678757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Efficacy of a Newly Designed Cephalometric Analysis Software for McNamara Analysis in Comparison with Dolphin Software.
    Nouri M; Hamidiaval S; Akbarzadeh Baghban A; Basafa M; Fahim M
    J Dent (Tehran); 2015 Jan; 12(1):60-9. PubMed ID: 26005455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Relationship between malocclusion, soft tissue profile, and pharyngeal airways: A cephalometric study.
    Lopatienė K; Šidlauskas A; Vasiliauskas A; Čečytė L; Švalkauskienė V; Šidlauskas M
    Medicina (Kaunas); 2016; 52(5):307-314. PubMed ID: 27816426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.