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 *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34605860)

  • 21. A comparison of three superimposition methods.
    You QL; Hägg U
    Eur J Orthod; 1999 Dec; 21(6):717-25. PubMed ID: 10665202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. United Reference Method for three-dimensional treatment evaluation.
    Shahen S; Lagravère MO; Carrino G; Fahim F; Abdelsalam R; Flores-Mir C; Perillo L
    Prog Orthod; 2018 Dec; 19(1):47. PubMed ID: 30506410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on lateral cephalograms obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans with digital lateral cephalometric radiography: an in vitro study.
    Shokri A; Khajeh S; Khavid A
    J Craniofac Surg; 2014 Sep; 25(5):1710-3. PubMed ID: 25203572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. A preliminary assessment of cephalometric orthodontic superimposition.
    Goel S; Bansal M; Kalra A
    Eur J Orthod; 2004 Apr; 26(2):217-22. PubMed ID: 15130046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Tracing error with Björk's mandibular structures.
    Cook PA; Gravely JF
    Angle Orthod; 1988 Apr; 58(2):169-78. PubMed ID: 3164595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Comparison of the Bolton Standards to longitudinal cephalograms superimposed on the occipital condyle (I-point).
    Standerwick RG; Roberts EW; Hartsfield JK; Babler WJ; Katona TR
    J Orthod; 2009 Mar; 36(1):23-35; discussion 13-4. PubMed ID: 19286873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Evaluation of growth changes induced by functional appliances in children with Class II malocclusion: Superimposition of lateral cephalograms on stable structures.
    Oh E; Ahn SJ; Sonnesen L
    Korean J Orthod; 2020 May; 50(3):170-180. PubMed ID: 32475844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The angle between the Frankfort horizontal and the sella-nasion line. Changes in porion and orbitale position during growth.
    Greiner P; Müller B; Dibbets J
    J Orofac Orthop; 2004 May; 65(3):217-22. PubMed ID: 15160248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The reliability of mandibular radiographic superimposition.
    Cook PA; Southall PJ
    Br J Orthod; 1989 Feb; 16(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 2923848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Precision and reliability of Dolphin 3-dimensional voxel-based superimposition.
    Bazina M; Cevidanes L; Ruellas A; Valiathan M; Quereshy F; Syed A; Wu R; Palomo JM
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Apr; 153(4):599-606. PubMed ID: 29602352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Reproducibility of maxillofacial anatomic landmarks on 3-dimensional computed tomographic images determined with the 95% confidence ellipse method.
    Muramatsu A; Nawa H; Kimura M; Yoshida K; Maeda M; Katsumata A; Ariji E; Goto S
    Angle Orthod; 2008 May; 78(3):396-402. PubMed ID: 18416622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Validity and reliability of ear landmarks as reference points for cephalometric analysis.
    Chutimanutskul W; Geenty JP; Shen G; Darendeliler MA
    World J Orthod; 2007; 8(2):122-8. PubMed ID: 17580505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Evaluation of differential growth and orthodontic treatment outcome by regional cephalometric superpositions.
    Efstratiadis SS; Cohen G; Ghafari J
    Angle Orthod; 1999 Jun; 69(3):225-30. PubMed ID: 10371427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. [Accuracy and reliability of three-dimensional craniofacial cone-beam CT superimposition method based on voxel registration].
    Zhou GH; Chen L; Sun YY; Ge N; Su L; Bai YX
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2016 Aug; 51(8):475-9. PubMed ID: 27511038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.