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.
72 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6584358)
1. The cephalometric projection. Part II. Principles of image distortion in cephalography. Ahlqvist J; Eliasson S; Welander U Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1983; 12(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 6584358 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Distortion and other errors in oblique cephalometric radiography. Winter CM; Woelfel JB; Igarashi T Angle Orthod; 1984 Oct; 54(4):330-46. PubMed ID: 6594961 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The effect of projection errors on angular measurements in cephalometry. Ahlqvist J; Eliasson S; Welander U Eur J Orthod; 1988 Nov; 10(4):353-61. PubMed ID: 3208848 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. [The method of adjustment of image distortion and measurement in cineradiography by computed system, with cephalometric radiography (author's transl)]. Tsuka H; Tanimoto K; Waca T; Yamauchi K Hiroshima Daigaku Shigaku Zasshi; 1980; 12(1):73-81. PubMed ID: 6938604 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. An evaluation of the J.O.E. cephalometric software. Dreyer CW Aust Orthod J; 1994 Oct; 13(3):199-201. PubMed ID: 8975658 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Digital image enhancement of cephalograms. Oka SW; Trussell HJ Angle Orthod; 1978 Jan; 48(1):80-4. PubMed ID: 272135 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Reliability of computer-generated cephalometrics. Nimkarn Y; Miles PG Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 1995; 10(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 9081992 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Accuracy of cephalometric landmarks on monitor-displayed radiographs with and without image emboss enhancement. Leonardi RM; Giordano D; Maiorana F; Greco M Eur J Orthod; 2010 Jun; 32(3):242-7. PubMed ID: 20022892 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The effect of image quality on the identification of cephalometric landmarks. McWilliam JS; Welander U Angle Orthod; 1978 Jan; 48(1):49-56. PubMed ID: 272131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Chen YJ; Chen SK; Yao JC; Chang HF Angle Orthod; 2004 Apr; 74(2):155-61. PubMed ID: 15132440 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A tensor analysis to evaluate the effect of high-pull headgear on Class II malocclusions. Ngan P; Scheick J; Florman M Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1993 Mar; 103(3):267-79. PubMed ID: 8456785 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [3-dimensional morphological study of the face (using cephalography)]. Nakahara L Shigaku; 1983 Aug; 71(2):153-256. PubMed ID: 6587240 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. An evaluation of the reproducibility of landmark identification using scanned cephalometric images. Turner PJ; Weerakone S J Orthod; 2001 Sep; 28(3):221-9. PubMed ID: 11504900 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Imaging characteristics of new screen/film systems for cephalometric radiography. Fatouros PP; Gibbs SJ; Skubic SE; Rao GU Angle Orthod; 1984 Jan; 54(1):36-54. PubMed ID: 6584050 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]