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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9423701)

  • 1. Manual and computer-aided space analysis: a comparative study.
    Schirmer UR; Wiltshire WA
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1997 Dec; 112(6):676-80. PubMed ID: 9423701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts.
    Leifert MF; Leifert MM; Efstratiadis SS; Cangialosi TJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):16.e1-4; discussion 16. PubMed ID: 19577140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Space analysis: a comparison between sonic digitization (DigiGraph Workstation) and the digital caliper.
    Mok KH; Cooke MS
    Eur J Orthod; 1998 Dec; 20(6):653-61. PubMed ID: 9926633
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Tooth size discrepancies and arch parameters among different malocclusions in a Jordanian sample.
    Al-Khateeb SN; Abu Alhaija ES
    Angle Orthod; 2006 May; 76(3):459-65. PubMed ID: 16637727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A new system for scanning, measuring and analyzing dental casts based on a 3D holographic sensor.
    Redlich M; Weinstock T; Abed Y; Schneor R; Holdstein Y; Fischer A
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2008 May; 11(2):90-5. PubMed ID: 18416750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Curve of Spee and its relationship to vertical eruption of teeth among different malocclusion groups.
    Veli I; Ozturk MA; Uysal T
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Mar; 147(3):305-12. PubMed ID: 25726397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning.
    Gül Amuk N; Karsli E; Kurt G
    Int Orthod; 2019 Mar; 17(1):151-158. PubMed ID: 30772351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of the dental arch changes in patients with different malocclusions.
    Singh DP; Garg AK; Singh SP; Krishna Nayak US; Gupta M
    Indian J Dent Res; 2014; 25(5):623-9. PubMed ID: 25511063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Discriminant factor analysis of dental arch dimensions with 3-dimensional virtual models.
    Slaj M; Spalj S; Jelusic D; Slaj M
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Nov; 140(5):680-7. PubMed ID: 22051488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Intra-observer reliability and agreement of manual and digital orthodontic model analysis.
    Koretsi V; Tingelhoff L; Proff P; Kirschneck C
    Eur J Orthod; 2018 Jan; 40(1):52-57. PubMed ID: 28531341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models.
    Santoro M; Galkin S; Teredesai M; Nicolay OF; Cangialosi TJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2003 Jul; 124(1):101-5. PubMed ID: 12867904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Space planning sensitivity and specificity: Royal London Space Planning and Korkhaus Analyses.
    Dause R; Cobourne M; McDonald F
    Aust Orthod J; 2010 May; 26(1):42-8. PubMed ID: 20575199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effects of levelling of the curve of Spee on the proclination of mandibular incisors and expansion of dental arches: a prospective clinical trial.
    Pandis N; Polychronopoulou A; Sifakakis I; Makou M; Eliades T
    Aust Orthod J; 2010 May; 26(1):61-5. PubMed ID: 20575202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Three-dimensional dental measurements: An alternative to plaster models.
    El-Zanaty HM; El-Beialy AR; Abou El-Ezz AM; Attia KH; El-Bialy AR; Mostafa YA
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Feb; 137(2):259-65. PubMed ID: 20152684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reliability of the Bolton tooth-size analysis when applied to crowded dentitions.
    Shellhart WC; Lange DW; Kluemper GT; Hicks EP; Kaplan AL
    Angle Orthod; 1995; 65(5):327-34. PubMed ID: 8526291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Artifact-resistant superimposition of digital dental models and cone-beam computed tomography images.
    Lin HH; Chiang WC; Lo LJ; Sheng-Pin Hsu S; Wang CH; Wan SY
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2013 Nov; 71(11):1933-47. PubMed ID: 23911142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of virtual and manual tooth setups with digital and plaster models in extraction cases.
    Im J; Cha JY; Lee KJ; Yu HS; Hwang CJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Apr; 145(4):434-42. PubMed ID: 24703281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparative study of dental arch width in plaster models, photocopies and digitized images.
    Rosseto MC; Palma FM; Ferreira RI; Pinzan A; Vellini-Ferreira F
    Braz Oral Res; 2009; 23(2):190-5. PubMed ID: 19684955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Dental arch shape and size in Malay schoolchildren with Class II malocclusion.
    Banabilh SM; Rajion ZA; Samsudin R; Singh GD
    Aust Orthod J; 2006 Nov; 22(2):99-103. PubMed ID: 17203572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Facial and dental arch asymmetries in Class II subdivision malocclusion.
    Alavi DG; BeGole EA; Schneider BJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1988 Jan; 93(1):38-46. PubMed ID: 3422120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.