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: 7977186)

  • 1. The variability and reliability of two maxillary and mandibular superimposition techniques. Part II.
    Cook AH; Sellke TA; BeGole EA
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1994 Nov; 106(5):463-71. PubMed ID: 7977186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of differential growth and orthodontic treatment outcome by regional cephalometric superpositions.
    Efstratiadis SS; Cohen G; Ghafari J
    Angle Orthod; 1999 Jun; 69(3):225-30. PubMed ID: 10371427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The validity of two methods of mandibular superimposition: a comparison with tantalum implants.
    Springate SD; Jones AG
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1998 Mar; 113(3):263-70. PubMed ID: 9517716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Radiographic evaluation of orthodontic treatment by means of four different cephalometric superimposition methods.
    Lenza MA; Carvalho AA; Lenza EB; Lenza MG; Torres HM; Souza JB
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2015; 20(3):29-36. PubMed ID: 26154453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comment on superimposition techniques.
    Swartz ML
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1995 Jun; 107(6):17A-18A. PubMed ID: 7771359
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Spatial changes in the relationship of the mandible and maxilla with different extraction patterns and techniques.
    MacGilpin DH; Araujo EA; Behrents RG; Rowan KB
    Angle Orthod; 2011 Jul; 81(4):584-91. PubMed ID: 21306228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. More comments on superimposition techniques.
    Dibbets JM
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1995 Jun; 107(6):18A-19A. PubMed ID: 7771360
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The validity of superimposing oblique cephalometric radiographs to assess tooth movement: an implant study.
    Sakima MT; Sakima CG; Melsen B
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2004 Sep; 126(3):344-53. PubMed ID: 15356499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An investigation of maxillary superimposition techniques using metallic implants.
    Doppel DM; Damon WM; Joondeph DR; Little RM
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1994 Feb; 105(2):161-8. PubMed ID: 8311038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Analysis of tooth movement in extraction cases using three-dimensional reverse engineering technology.
    Cha BK; Lee JY; Jost-Brinkmann PG; Yoshida N
    Eur J Orthod; 2007 Aug; 29(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 17513876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of Class II treatment by cephalometric regional superpositions versus conventional measurements.
    Efstratiadis S; Baumrind S; Shofer F; Jacobsson-Hunt U; Laster L; Ghafari J
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Nov; 128(5):607-18. PubMed ID: 16286208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Analysis of general facial growth, maxillary and mandibular growth and treatment changes ("Structural analysis").
    Nielsen IL
    Int Orthod; 2011 Dec; 9(4):388-409. PubMed ID: 22032962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Stability of Class II treatment with an edgewise crowned Herbst appliance in the early mixed dentition: Skeletal and dental changes.
    Wigal TG; Dischinger T; Martin C; Razmus T; Gunel E; Ngan P
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Aug; 140(2):210-23. PubMed ID: 21803259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An evaluation of maxillary and mandibular rotational responses with the Clark twin block appliance.
    Lau EY; Sampson WJ; Townsend GC; Hughes T
    Aust Orthod J; 2009 May; 25(1):48-58. PubMed ID: 19634464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Orthodontic treatment changes of chin position in Class II Division 1 patients.
    LaHaye MB; Buschang PH; Alexander RG; Boley JC
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Dec; 130(6):732-41. PubMed ID: 17169735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Maxillary superimposition: a comparison of three methods for cephalometric evaluation of growth and treatment change.
    Nielsen IL
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1989 May; 95(5):422-31. PubMed ID: 2718972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cephalometric comparison of maxillary second molar extraction and nonextraction treatments in patients with Class II malocclusions.
    Waters D; Harris EF
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Dec; 120(6):608-13; quiz 677. PubMed ID: 11742305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. An evaluation of growth changes and treatment effects in Class II, Division 1 malocclusion with conventional roentgenographic cephalometry and finite element method analysis.
    Cangialosi TJ; Moss ML; McAlarney ME; Nirenblatt BD; Yuan M
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1994 Feb; 105(2):153-60. PubMed ID: 8311037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Control of the vertical dimension in Class II correction using a cervical headgear and lower utility arch in growing patients. Part I.
    Cook AH; Sellke TA; BeGole EA
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1994 Oct; 106(4):376-88. PubMed ID: 7942653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A cephalometric evaluation of nonextraction cervical headgear treatment in Class II malocclusions.
    Hubbard GW; Nanda RS; Currier GF
    Angle Orthod; 1994; 64(5):359-70. PubMed ID: 7802330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.