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 *

60 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9582681)

  • 1. Interocclusal distance in patients with different skeletal patterns.
    Loh PL; Chew CL
    Singapore Dent J; 1995 Jul; 20(1):4-7. PubMed ID: 9582681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A diagnostic index of vertical problems for Class III malocclusions.
    Miyajima K; McNamara JA; Murata S
    Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 1997; 12(3):189-95. PubMed ID: 9511489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Interocclusal distance: a comparison between American Caucasians and Negroes.
    Shirinian GH; Strem BE
    J Prosthet Dent; 1977 Apr; 37(4):394-6. PubMed ID: 265397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of denture fabrication and wear on closest speaking space and interocclusal distance during deglutition.
    de Souza RF; Marra J; Pero AC; Compagnoni MA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Jun; 97(6):381-8. PubMed ID: 17618921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A preliminary study on the effect of occlusal vertical dimension increase on mandibular postural rest position.
    Gross MD; Ormianer Z
    Int J Prosthodont; 1994; 7(3):216-26. PubMed ID: 7916886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pathognomonic cephalometric characteristics of Angle Class II Division 2 malocclusion.
    Brezniak N; Arad A; Heller M; Dinbar A; Dinte A; Wasserstein A
    Angle Orthod; 2002 Jun; 72(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 12071609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of new dentures on interocclusal distance during speech.
    Rodrigues Garcia RC; Oliveira VM; Del Bel Cury AA
    Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(5):533-7. PubMed ID: 14651241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry.
    Chen YJ; Chen SK; Chang HF; Chen KC
    Angle Orthod; 2000 Oct; 70(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 11036999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Determination of vertical dimension of occlusion in dentate patients by cephalometric analysis--pilot study.
    Tavano KT; Seraidarian PI; de Oliveira DD; Jansen WC
    Gerodontology; 2012 Jun; 29(2):e297-305. PubMed ID: 21323984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparative study of cephalometric and arch width characteristics of Class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusions.
    Isik F; Nalbantgil D; Sayinsu K; Arun T
    Eur J Orthod; 2006 Apr; 28(2):179-83. PubMed ID: 16431898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Interocclusal clearance during speech and in mandibular rest position. A comparison between different measuring methods.
    Meier B; Luck O; Harzer W
    J Orofac Orthop; 2003 Mar; 64(2):121-34. PubMed ID: 12649708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Treatment strategies for patients with hyperdivergent Class II Division 1 malocclusion: is vertical dimension affected?
    Gkantidis N; Halazonetis DJ; Alexandropoulos E; Haralabakis NB
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Sep; 140(3):346-55. PubMed ID: 21889079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Perioral soft tissue evaluation of skeletal Class II Division 1: A lateral cephalometric study.
    Lee YJ; Park JT; Cha JY
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Sep; 148(3):405-13. PubMed ID: 26321338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [The variation and formation of vertical skeletal facial pattern in skeletal Class III cases. Investigation by means of multivariate analysis].
    Endo N
    Nihon Kyosei Shika Gakkai Zasshi; 1987 Mar; 46(1):50-70. PubMed ID: 3506551
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of the closest speaking space in different dental and skeletal occlusions.
    Sakar O; Bural C; Sülün T; Öztaş E; Marşan G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Apr; 109(4):222-6. PubMed ID: 23566602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparative cephalometric study of Class II division 1 malocclusion between Lithuanian and Jordanian females.
    Bader BA; Vasiliauskas A; Qadri AS
    Stomatologija; 2008; 10(1):44-8. PubMed ID: 18493165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The arc index in evaluation of Class III malocclusion.
    Kao CT; Huang TH; Chen FM; Lin TY
    Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 1997; 12(2):135-43. PubMed ID: 9511484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of cranial base growth in Class I and Class II skeletal patterns.
    Wilhelm BM; Beck FM; Lidral AC; Vig KW
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 Apr; 119(4):401-5. PubMed ID: 11298313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [A comparative study of skeletal cephalometric of normal occlusion between the middle-old-aged and young people].
    Zhang C; Lai S; Hu G
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 1997 Aug; 15(3):226-7, 241. PubMed ID: 11480004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of cervical posture of children in skeletal class I, II, and III.
    D'Attilio M; Caputi S; Epifania E; Festa F; Tecco S
    Cranio; 2005 Jul; 23(3):219-28. PubMed ID: 16128357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.