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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39074835)

  • 41. What Is the Perception of an Esthetic Lower Facial Third Profile in the Korean Layperson Population?
    Kim JY; Ku JK; Lee S; Huh JK; Han MD
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 May; 80(5):838-849. PubMed ID: 35033506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. [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]  

  • 43. Effect of orthognathic surgery on profile esthetics in Class II:1 malocclusions.
    Klaus K; Heumann C; Ruf S
    J Orofac Orthop; 2017 Nov; 78(6):472-479. PubMed ID: 28660422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Influence of facial convexity on facial attractiveness in Japanese.
    Ioi H; Nakata S; Nakasima A; Counts A
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2007 Nov; 10(4):181-6. PubMed ID: 17973684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. The ability of orthodontists and laypeople to discriminate mandibular stepwise advancements in a Class II retrognathic mandible.
    Barroso MC; Silva NC; Quintão CC; Normando D
    Prog Orthod; 2012 Sep; 13(2):141-7. PubMed ID: 23021117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Impact of facial components on the attractiveness of face: A perception-based study.
    Parul P; Kumar M; Goyal M; Mishra S; Shaha K; Abrar M
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2022 Nov; 162(5):e218-e229. PubMed ID: 36031510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Esthetic preferences of orthodontists, dentists, and plastic surgeons for balanced facial profiles.
    Milutinovic J; Aleksic E; Avramov S; Kalevski K; Gajic M; Pejanovic D; Milic J
    J Oral Sci; 2023 Mar; 65(2):73-76. PubMed ID: 36823034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Treatment effects and lip profile changes following premolars extraction treatment vs fixed functional treatment in Class II division 1 malocclusion: A randomized controlled clinical trial.
    Kochar GD; Londhe S; Chopra SS; Kohli S; Kohli VS; Kamboj A; Verma M
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2023; 28(2):e232140. PubMed ID: 37222338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Comparison of the effect of labiolingual inclination and anteroposterior position of maxillary incisors on esthetic profile in three different facial patterns.
    Chirivella P; Singaraju GS; Mandava P; Reddy VK; Neravati JK; George SA
    J Orthod Sci; 2017; 6(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 28197396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Impact of functional orthodontic treatment on facial attractiveness of children with Class II division 1 malocclusion.
    Paduano S; Rongo R; Bucci R; Carvelli G; Cioffi I
    Eur J Orthod; 2020 Apr; 42(2):144-150. PubMed ID: 31586412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Comparison of anteroposterior lip positions of the most-favored facial profiles of Korean and Japanese people.
    Ioi H; Shimomura T; Nakata S; Nakasima A; Counts AL
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Oct; 134(4):490-5. PubMed ID: 18929266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Cephalometric norms and esthetic profile preference for the Japanese: a systematic review.
    Bronfman CN; Janson G; Pinzan A; Rocha TL
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2015; 20(6):43-51. PubMed ID: 26691969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Influence of facial type on attractiveness of vertical canine position from the perspective of orthodontists and laypeople.
    Acar YB; Abuhan E; Boyacıyan R; Özdemir F
    Angle Orthod; 2022 Mar; 92(2):233-239. PubMed ID: 34652426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Attractiveness of facial profiles as rated by individuals with different levels of education.
    Hönn M; Dietz K; Eiselt ML; Göz G
    J Orofac Orthop; 2008 Jan; 69(1):20-30. PubMed ID: 18213458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Psychometric and Perceptometric Comparisons of the Perspectives of Orthodontists, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, and Laypeople of Different Ages and Sexes towards Beauty of Female Jaw Angles (Intergonial Widths and Gonial Heights) on Frontal and Three-Quarter Views.
    Moradinejad M; Rekabi A; Ashtiani AH; Atashkar N; Rakhshan V
    Biomed Res Int; 2022; 2022():2595662. PubMed ID: 36398071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. [Profile types in relation to facial angle in different skeletal jaw relationships].
    Blazeyĭ Z; Tanic T; Radojicic J
    Stomatologiia (Mosk); 2009; 88(6):66-72. PubMed ID: 20081785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. The influence of education and gender on the esthetic perception of facial profile.
    Torul D; Omezli MM
    Int J Esthet Dent; 2022 Feb; 17(1):88-99. PubMed ID: 35175010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Comparison of esthetics perception and satisfaction of facial profile among male adolescents and adults with different profiles.
    Eslami N; Omidkhoda M; Shafaee H; Mozhdehifard M
    J Orthod Sci; 2016; 5(2):47-51. PubMed ID: 27127750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. The influence of sagittal position of the mandible in facial attractiveness and social perception.
    Sena LMF; Damasceno E Araújo LAL; Farias ACR; Pereira HSG
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2017; 22(2):77-86. PubMed ID: 28658359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Profile changes in orthodontic patients treated with mandibular advancement surgery.
    Tsang ST; McFadden LR; Wiltshire WA; Pershad N; Baker AB
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jan; 135(1):66-72. PubMed ID: 19121503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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