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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36106287)

  • 21. Assessment of the Acceptable Range of Lips and Chin Position in Two Different Geographical Zones of Iran among Laypersons.
    Golfeshan F; Nasseri Mojarad A; Sardarian AR
    J Dent (Shiraz); 2024 Jun; 25(2):169-177. PubMed ID: 38962081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Effect of lower facial height and anteroposterior lip position on esthetic preference for Korean silhouette profiles.
    Seo KH; So DH; Song KT; Choi SK; Kang KH
    Korean J Orthod; 2021 Nov; 51(6):419-427. PubMed ID: 34803030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Differences in facial profile and dental esthetic perceptions between young adults and orthodontists.
    Yin L; Jiang M; Chen W; Smales RJ; Wang Q; Tang L
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Jun; 145(6):750-6. PubMed ID: 24880845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Facial profile preferences, self-awareness and perception among groups of people in the United Arab Emirates.
    Al Taki A; Guidoum A
    J Orthod Sci; 2014 Apr; 3(2):55-61. PubMed ID: 24987664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The effect of western adaptation of Hispanic-Americans on their assessment of Korean facial profiles.
    Toureno L; Kook YA; Bayome M; Park JH
    Korean J Orthod; 2014 Jan; 44(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 24511513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Relationships between facial features in the perception of profile attractiveness.
    Torsello F; Graci M; Grande NM; Deli R
    Prog Orthod; 2010; 11(2):92-7. PubMed ID: 20974445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [In vitro study of a new lasso device for intra-canal broken instrument removal].
    Cai CL; Ye NS; Yuan LJ; Wu SC; Pan GY; Fang B
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2021 Dec; 30(6):611-617. PubMed ID: 35587016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Esthetic evaluation of lip position in silhouette with respect to profile divergence.
    Zarif Najafi H; Sabouri SA; Ebrahimi E; Torkan S
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Jun; 149(6):863-70. PubMed ID: 27241997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The importance of using the entire face to assess facial profile attractiveness.
    Tauk A; Bassil-Nassif N; Mouhanna-Fattal C; Bouserhal J
    Int Orthod; 2016 Mar; 14(1):65-79. PubMed ID: 26867684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. An evaluation of preferred lip positions according to different age groups.
    Park NS; Park JH; Bayome M; Mo SS; Kim Y; Kook YA
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2013 May; 42(5):637-42. PubMed ID: 23141151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effect of the gingival display on posed smile with different facial forms: a comparison of dentists and patients concepts.
    Akhare PJ; Daga A
    Indian J Dent Res; 2012; 23(5):568-73. PubMed ID: 23422598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Self-perception of facial esthetics by patients with different profiles compared with assessments of orthodontists and lay people.
    Volpato GH; de Almeida-Pedrin RR; Oltramari PVP; Freire Fernandes TM; de Almeida MR; de Castro Ferreira Conti AC
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2020 Dec; 158(6):840-848. PubMed ID: 33256916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Esthetic evaluation of the facial profile in rehabilitated adults with complete bilateral cleft lip and palate.
    Ferrari Júnior FM; Ayub PV; Capelozza Filho L; Pereira Lauris JR; Garib DG
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2015 Jan; 73(1):169.e1-6. PubMed ID: 25511967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Facial profile preferences: a cross-sectional survey].
    Hélou ME; Kassis A; Haddad R; Ghoubril J
    Orthod Fr; 2016 Sep; 87(3):341-346. PubMed ID: 27726842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Facial attractiveness of skeletal class I and class II malocclusion as perceived by laypeople, patients and clinicians.
    Pace M; Cioffi I; D'antò V; Valletta A; Valletta R; Amato M
    Minerva Stomatol; 2018 Jun; 67(3):77-85. PubMed ID: 29308854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Photos vs silhouettes for evaluation of African American profile esthetics.
    Hockley A; Weinstein M; Borislow AJ; Braitman LE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Feb; 141(2):161-8. PubMed ID: 22284283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Establishment of South Indian soft tissue cephalometric norms using profile angles and esthetic analysis.
    Biradar AK; Madanagowda SB
    World J Orthod; 2010; 11(4):e104-13. PubMed ID: 21490979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Influence of lip position on esthetics perception with respect to profile divergence using silhouette images.
    Alshammari AK; Algharbi MA; Alshammari SK; Alenzi AA; Malik YR; Abideen MZ; Siddiqui AA; Madfa AA
    BMC Oral Health; 2023 Oct; 23(1):791. PubMed ID: 37875850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Facial profile preference among four panels].
    Wang Y; Liao ZY; Lai WL; Yang Z; Zhao ZH
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2008 Aug; 43(8):468-71. PubMed ID: 19087585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Evaluation of facial aesthetics in young population with beautiful faces in Nanchang city].
    Qu J; Lu X; Ge HS; Liu WJ; Zhi Q; Wang DK
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2014 Oct; 23(5):586-9. PubMed ID: 25543603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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