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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34800930)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. [Orthodonticorthognathic treatment stability in skeletal class III malocclusion patients].
    Wang XJ; Zhang YM; Zhou YH
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2019 Feb; 51(1):86-92. PubMed ID: 30773550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Therapeutic evaluation of the correction of the severe bi-maxillary protrusion cases by Tweed-Merrifield technique].
    Huang JQ; Liu SY; Jiang JH
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2016 Jun; 48(3):555-61. PubMed ID: 27318924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of fully automated cephalometric measurements obtained from web-based artificial intelligence driven platform.
    Mahto RK; Kafle D; Giri A; Luintel S; Karki A
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Apr; 22(1):132. PubMed ID: 35440037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. [Treatment of adult bimaxillary arch protrusion with micro-implant anchorage].
    Chen C; Zhang XR
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2015 Feb; 24(1):76-82. PubMed ID: 25858374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Comparing a Fully Automated Cephalometric Tracing Method to a Manual Tracing Method for Orthodontic Diagnosis.
    Tsolakis IA; Tsolakis AI; Elshebiny T; Matthaios S; Palomo JM
    J Clin Med; 2022 Nov; 11(22):. PubMed ID: 36431331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of an online website-based platform for cephalometric analysis.
    Alqahtani H
    J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2020 Feb; 121(1):53-57. PubMed ID: 31059836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Three-dimensional cephalometric analysis of the maxilla: Analysis of new landmarks.
    Han MD; Momin MR; Munaretto AM; Hao S
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2019 Sep; 156(3):337-344. PubMed ID: 31474263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Comparison between cephalometric measurements using digital manual and web-based artificial intelligence cephalometric tracing software.
    Çoban G; Öztürk T; Hashimli N; Yağci A
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2022; 27(4):e222112. PubMed ID: 35976288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.