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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

160 related items for PubMed ID: 11304928

  • 1. Reliability and validity of the Digigraph 100 in orthodontic diagnosis.
    Doll GM, Zentner A, Krummenauer F, Gärtner H.
    J Orofac Orthop; 2001 Mar; 62(2):116-32. PubMed ID: 11304928
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. A comparison between radiographic and sonically produced cephalometric values.
    Prawat JS, Nieberg L, Cisneros GJ, Acs G.
    Angle Orthod; 1995 Mar; 65(4):271-6. PubMed ID: 7486241
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Measurements from conventional, digital and CT-derived cephalograms: a comparative study.
    Ghoneima A, Albarakati S, Baysal A, Uysal T, Kula K.
    Aust Orthod J; 2012 Nov; 28(2):232-9. PubMed ID: 23304973
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography.
    Moshiri M, Scarfe WC, Hilgers ML, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):550-60. PubMed ID: 17920510
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Ceph-X: development and evaluation of 2D cephalometric system.
    Mosleh MA, Baba MS, Malek S, Almaktari RA.
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2016 Dec 22; 17(Suppl 19):499. PubMed ID: 28155649
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Digital and manual cephalometric analysis.
    Thurzo A, Javorka V, Stanko P, Lysy J, Suchancova B, Lehotska V, Valkovic L, Makovnik M.
    Bratisl Lek Listy; 2010 Dec 22; 111(2):97-100. PubMed ID: 20429323
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Anatomically shaped cranial collimation (ACC) for lateral cephalometric radiography: a technical report.
    Hoogeveen RC, van der Stelt PF, Berkhout WE.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2014 Dec 22; 43(1):20130203. PubMed ID: 24170799
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. How important are lateral cephalometric radiographs in orthodontic treatment planning?
    Devereux L, Moles D, Cunningham SJ, McKnight M.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Feb 22; 139(2):e175-81. PubMed ID: 21300228
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Fully Automatic System for Accurate Localisation and Analysis of Cephalometric Landmarks in Lateral Cephalograms.
    Lindner C, Wang CW, Huang CT, Li CH, Chang SW, Cootes TF.
    Sci Rep; 2016 Sep 20; 6():33581. PubMed ID: 27645567
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Lateral cephalometric analysis for treatment planning in orthodontics based on MRI compared with radiographs: A feasibility study in children and adolescents.
    Heil A, Lazo Gonzalez E, Hilgenfeld T, Kickingereder P, Bendszus M, Heiland S, Ozga AK, Sommer A, Lux CJ, Zingler S.
    PLoS One; 2017 Sep 20; 12(3):e0174524. PubMed ID: 28334054
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program.
    Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG.
    Angle Orthod; 2008 May 20; 78(3):387-95. PubMed ID: 18416632
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. 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 20; 39(2):156-60. PubMed ID: 20044238
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Significance of Cephalometric Radiograph in Orthodontic Treatment Plan Decision.
    Helal NM, Basri OA, Baeshen HA.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2019 Jul 01; 20(7):789-793. PubMed ID: 31597797
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Phosphor-stimulated computed cephalometry: reliability of landmark identification.
    Lim KF, Foong KW.
    Br J Orthod; 1997 Nov 01; 24(4):301-8. PubMed ID: 9459029
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms.
    Cattaneo PM, Bloch CB, Calmar D, Hjortshøj M, Melsen B.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Dec 01; 134(6):798-802. PubMed ID: 19061807
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.