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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3472459)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Changes in mandibular position in treated Class II division 2 malocclusions in growing and non-growing subjects.
    AL-Nimri K; Abo-Zomor M; Alomari S
    Aust Orthod J; 2016 May; 32(1):73-81. PubMed ID: 27468594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Soft tissue images from cephalograms compared with those from a 3D surface acquisition system.
    Incrapera AK; Kau CH; English JD; McGrory K; Sarver DM
    Angle Orthod; 2010 Jan; 80(1):58-64. PubMed ID: 19852641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 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. Correlations among craniofacial angles and dimensions in Class I and Class II malocclusions.
    Anderson D; Popovich F
    Angle Orthod; 1989; 59(1):37-42. PubMed ID: 2923320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Craniofacial parameters of Syrian children with β-thalassemia major.
    Takriti M; Dashash M
    J Investig Clin Dent; 2011 May; 2(2):135-43. PubMed ID: 25426607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison between craniofacial templates of Iranian and western populations.
    Akhoundi MS; Chalipa J; Hashemi R; Nik TH; Sodagar A; Afzalifar R
    Acta Med Iran; 2012; 50(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 22359083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Dental and facial skeletal characteristics and growth of females and males with Class II Division 1 malocclusion between the ages of 10 and 14 (revisited). Part II. Anteroposterior and vertical circumpubertal growth.
    Rothstein T; Phan XL
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Nov; 120(5):542-55. PubMed ID: 11709673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quantitation of maxillary remodeling. 2. Masking of remodeling effects when an "anatomical" method of superimposition is used in the absence of metallic implants.
    Baumrind S; Korn EL; Ben-Bassat Y; West EE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1987 Jun; 91(6):463-74. PubMed ID: 3473926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Sella-Nasion line revisited.
    Sarhan OA
    J Oral Rehabil; 1995 Dec; 22(12):905-8. PubMed ID: 9217302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of extraction and non-extraction treatment effects by two different superimposition methods.
    Türköz Ç; İşcan HN
    Eur J Orthod; 2011 Dec; 33(6):691-9. PubMed ID: 21378094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.