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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38721219)

  • 21. Comparison between cephalometric classification methods for sagittal jaw relationships.
    Hurmerinta K; Rahkamo A; Haavikko K
    Eur J Oral Sci; 1997 Jun; 105(3):221-7. PubMed ID: 9249188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [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]  

  • 23. Analysis of factors affecting angle ANB.
    Hussels W; Nanda RS
    Am J Orthod; 1984 May; 85(5):411-23. PubMed ID: 6586080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Properties of the ANB angle and the Wits appraisal in the skeletal estimation of Angle's Class III patients.
    Iwasaki H; Ishikawa H; Chowdhury L; Nakamura S; Iida J
    Eur J Orthod; 2002 Oct; 24(5):477-83. PubMed ID: 12407943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Floating norms for individualising the ANB angle and the WITS appraisal in orthodontic cephalometric analysis based on guiding variables.
    Paddenberg E; Proff P; Kirschneck C
    J Orofac Orthop; 2023 Jan; 84(1):10-18. PubMed ID: 34255093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of popular sagittal cephalometric analyses for validity and reliability.
    Qamaruddin I; Alam MK; Shahid F; Tanveer S; Umer M; Amin E
    Saudi Dent J; 2018 Jan; 30(1):43-46. PubMed ID: 30166870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The wits appraisal using three reference planes and its interaction with the ANB angle among a sub-set of Nigerians".
    Ifesanya JU; Adeyemi AT; Otuyemi OD
    Afr J Med Med Sci; 2014 Sep; 43(3):225-30. PubMed ID: 26223140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A heuristic model for cephalometric diagnosis of sagittal dysplasia.
    Khandelwal M; Ramaiah PT; Setty S; Subramonia S; Kapoor S; Karajagi S
    J Orthod; 2022 Jun; 49(2):163-173. PubMed ID: 34841940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Definition of New Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Analysis of Maxillomandibular Sagittal Relationship for Orthodontics and Orthognathic Surgery: Normative Data Based on 700 CBCT Scans.
    Ertty E; Méndez-Manjón I; Haas OL; Hernández-Alfaro F; Meloti F
    J Craniofac Surg; 2023 Jun; 34(4):1291-1295. PubMed ID: 36922378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Cephalometric changes in pharyngeal airway dimensions after functional treatment with twin block versus myobrace appliances in developing skeletal class II patients: a randomized clinical trial.
    Madian AM; Elfouly D
    BMC Oral Health; 2023 Dec; 23(1):998. PubMed ID: 38093237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Cephalometric Floating Norms for the
    Perinetti G; Ceschi M; Scalia A; Contardo L
    Biomed Res Int; 2018; 2018():8740731. PubMed ID: 29850584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The reliability of 3 sagittal reference planes in the assessment of Class I and Class III treatment.
    Palleck S; Foley TF; Hall-Scott J
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Apr; 119(4):426-35. PubMed ID: 11298316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children.
    Owens D; Watkinson S; Harrison JE; Turner S; Worthington HV
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2024 Apr; 4(4):CD003451. PubMed ID: 38597341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Skeletal response to maxillary protraction in patients with cleft lip and palate before age 10 years.
    Tindlund RS
    Cleft Palate Craniofac J; 1994 Jul; 31(4):295-308. PubMed ID: 7918525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Three dimensional reliability analyses of currently used methods for assessment of sagittal jaw discrepancy.
    Almaqrami BS; Alhammadi MS; Cao B
    J Clin Exp Dent; 2018 Apr; 10(4):e352-e360. PubMed ID: 29750096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Clinical application of a method to correct angle ANB for geometric effects.
    Hussels W; Nanda RS
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1987 Dec; 92(6):506-10. PubMed ID: 3479897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Relationship between skeletal Class II and Class III malocclusions with vertical skeletal pattern.
    Plaza SP; Reimpell A; Silva J; Montoya D
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2019 Sep; 24(4):63-72. PubMed ID: 31508708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Photographic Frankfort plane subnasale pogonion (FSA) angle for assessment of anteroposterior discrepancies in malocclusion subjects: A prospective study.
    Rebekah R; Jain RK; Balasubramaniam A; Sreenivasagan S
    J Orthod Sci; 2023; 12():57. PubMed ID: 37881674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Determination of Class II and Class III skeletal patterns: receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis on various cephalometric measurements.
    Han UK; Kim YH
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1998 May; 113(5):538-45. PubMed ID: 9598612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Comparison of different parameters for recording sagittal maxillo mandibular relation using natural head posture: A cephalometric study.
    Singh AK; Ganeshkar SV; Mehrotra P; Bhagchandani J
    J Orthod Sci; 2013 Jan; 2(1):16-22. PubMed ID: 24987638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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