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 *

183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8005198)

  • 1. Validity of cephalometric landmarks. An experimental study on human skulls.
    Tng TT; Chan TC; Hägg U; Cooke MS
    Eur J Orthod; 1994 Apr; 16(2):110-20. PubMed ID: 8005198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of cephalometric landmark validity on incisor angulation.
    Chan CK; Tng TH; Hägg U; Cooke MS
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1994 Nov; 106(5):487-95. PubMed ID: 7977189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks: an experimental study on skulls.
    Hägg U; Cooke MS; Chan TC; Tng TT; Lau PY
    Aust Orthod J; 1998 Oct; 15(3):177-85. PubMed ID: 10204427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Attempted validation of a method to locate entry and exit foramens of the branches of the trigeminal nerve; benefits for an original cephalometric analysis technique.
    Diouf JS; Badiane A; Ngom PI; Crocquet M; Ousehal L; Diop-Bâ K; Diagne F; Danguy M
    Int Orthod; 2013 Mar; 11(1):104-17. PubMed ID: 23395322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs.
    van Vlijmen OJ; Bergé SJ; Swennen GR; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Jan; 67(1):92-7. PubMed ID: 19070753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cephalometric correction factors for bite opening--a dry skull study.
    Lam E; Quick AN; Herbison P
    Eur J Orthod; 2006 Aug; 28(4):378-82. PubMed ID: 16495373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of cephalometric analysis using a non-radiographic sonic digitizer (DigiGraph Workstation) with conventional radiography.
    Tsang KH; Cooke MS
    Eur J Orthod; 1999 Feb; 21(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 10191573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Validity and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements obtained from digital photographs of analogue headfilms.
    Grybauskas S; Balciuniene I; Vetra J
    Stomatologija; 2007; 9(4):114-20. PubMed ID: 18303276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans.
    Kragskov J; Bosch C; Gyldensted C; Sindet-Pedersen S
    Cleft Palate Craniofac J; 1997 Mar; 34(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 9138504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparison between 2D and 3D cephalometry on CBCT scans of human skulls.
    van Vlijmen OJ; Maal T; Bergé SJ; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 Feb; 39(2):156-60. PubMed ID: 20044238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of head posture on cephalometric sagittal angular measures.
    Tng TT; Chan TC; Cooke MS; Hägg U
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1993 Oct; 104(4):337-41. PubMed ID: 8213654
    [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. Validity and reliability of ear landmarks as reference points for cephalometric analysis.
    Chutimanutskul W; Geenty JP; Shen G; Darendeliler MA
    World J Orthod; 2007; 8(2):122-8. PubMed ID: 17580505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A method of magnification correction for posteroanterior radiographic cephalometry.
    Hsiao TH; Chang HP; Liu KM
    Angle Orthod; 1997; 67(2):137-42. PubMed ID: 9107378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: a comparative study.
    Durão AP; Morosolli A; Pittayapat P; Bolstad N; Ferreira AP; Jacobs R
    Imaging Sci Dent; 2015 Dec; 45(4):213-20. PubMed ID: 26730368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy and clinical validity of automated cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural networks.
    Kang S; Kim I; Kim YJ; Kim N; Baek SH; Sung SJ
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2024 Feb; 27(1):64-77. PubMed ID: 37326233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of the CT scanogram for assessment of craniofacial morphology.
    Lee FC; Noar JH; Evans RD
    Angle Orthod; 2011 Jan; 81(1):17-25. PubMed ID: 20936950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The accuracy of cephalometric tracing superimposition.
    Gliddon MJ; Xia JJ; Gateno J; Wong HT; Lasky RE; Teichgraeber JF; Jia X; Liebschner MA; Lemoine JJ
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Feb; 64(2):194-202. PubMed ID: 16413890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of frontal radiographs obtained from cone beam CT scans and conventional frontal radiographs of human skulls.
    van Vlijmen OJ; Bergé SJ; Bronkhorst EM; Swennen GR; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Jul; 38(7):773-8. PubMed ID: 19369033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls.
    van Vlijmen OJ; Maal TJ; Bergé SJ; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2009 Jun; 117(3):300-5. PubMed ID: 19583759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.