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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35901950)

  • 41. Reliability and validity of lower limb joint range of motion measurements using a smartphone.
    Miyachi Y; Ito M; Furuta K; Ban R; Hanamura S; Kamiya M
    Nagoya J Med Sci; 2022 Feb; 84(1):7-18. PubMed ID: 35392008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. Reliability analysis of a smartphone-aided measurement method for the Cobb angle of scoliosis.
    Qiao J; Liu Z; Xu L; Wu T; Zheng X; Zhu Z; Zhu F; Qian B; Qiu Y
    J Spinal Disord Tech; 2012 Jun; 25(4):E88-92. PubMed ID: 22237178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo.
    Oz U; Orhan K; Abe N
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2011 Dec; 40(8):492-500. PubMed ID: 22065798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Predictability and Reliability of Different Anterio-Posterior Skeletal Discrepancy Indicators in Different Age Groups - A Cephalometric Study.
    Tiwari R; Shyagali TR; Gupta A; Joshi R; Tiwari A; Sen P
    J Clin Diagn Res; 2016 Sep; 10(9):ZC80-ZC84. PubMed ID: 27790586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Comparable Skeletal and Dental Movements Achieved Using Conventional and Surgery-First Techniques in Class III Patients.
    Florentine C; Kimberly A; Mehta S; Kuo CL; Uribe F; Lottinger C
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Nov; 80(11):1747-1756. PubMed ID: 36076358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Evaluation of accuracy and reliability of OneCeph digital cephalometric analysis in comparison with manual cephalometric analysis-a cross-sectional study.
    Mohan A; Sivakumar A; Nalabothu P
    BDJ Open; 2021 Jun; 7(1):22. PubMed ID: 34140466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Cephalometric measurements performed on CBCT and reconstructed lateral cephalograms: a cross-sectional study providing a quantitative approach of differences and bias.
    Baldini B; Cavagnetto D; Baselli G; Sforza C; Tartaglia GM
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Mar; 22(1):98. PubMed ID: 35351080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. Sagittal Jaw Relationship of Different Types of Cleft and Non-cleft Individuals.
    Alam MK; Alfawzan AA; Haque S; Mok PL; Marya A; Venugopal A; Jamayet NB; Siddiqui AA
    Front Pediatr; 2021; 9():651951. PubMed ID: 34026687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Cephalometric evaluation of children with familial Mediterranean fever.
    Gungor AY; Arica V; Gungor O; Tutanc M
    Angle Orthod; 2012 May; 82(3):552-5. PubMed ID: 22126097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Spiral drawing: Quantitative analysis and artificial-intelligence-based diagnosis using a smartphone.
    Ishii N; Mochizuki Y; Shiomi K; Nakazato M; Mochizuki H
    J Neurol Sci; 2020 Apr; 411():116723. PubMed ID: 32050132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. 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]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. [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]  

  • 57. Reliability of mobile application-based cephalometric analysis for chair side evaluation of orthodontic patient in clinical practice.
    Barbhuiya MH; Kumar P; Thakral R; Krishnapriya R; Bawa M
    J Orthod Sci; 2021; 10():16. PubMed ID: 34568212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Comparison of manual, digital and lateral CBCT cephalometric analyses.
    Navarro Rde L; Oltramari-Navarro PV; Fernandes TM; Oliveira GF; Conti AC; Almeida MR; Almeida RR
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2013; 21(2):167-76. PubMed ID: 23739848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. 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]  

  • 60. Reproducibility and speed of landmarking process in cephalometric analysis using two input devices: mouse-driven cursor versus pen.
    Cutrera A; Barbato E; Maiorana F; Giordano D; Leonardi R
    Ann Stomatol (Roma); 2015; 6(2):47-52. PubMed ID: 26330904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.