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

891 related items for PubMed ID: 17920510

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. The reliability of cephalometric measurements in oral and maxillofacial imaging: Cone beam computed tomography versus two-dimensional digital cephalograms.
    Hariharan A, Diwakar NR, Jayanthi K, Hema HM, Deepukrishna S, Ghaste SR.
    Indian J Dent Res; 2016; 27(4):370-377. PubMed ID: 27723632
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo.
    Oz U, Orhan K, Abe N.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2011 Dec; 40(8):492-500. PubMed ID: 22065798
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Accuracy of linear temporomandibular joint measurements with cone beam computed tomography and digital cephalometric radiography.
    Hilgers ML, Scarfe WC, Scheetz JP, Farman AG.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Dec; 128(6):803-11. PubMed ID: 16360924
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Reliability and accuracy of cone beam computed tomography versus conventional multidetector computed tomography for image-guided craniofacial implant planning: An in vitro study.
    Dings JP, Verhamme L, Merkx MA, Xi T, Meijer GJ, Maal TJ.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019 Dec; 34(3):665–672. PubMed ID: 30934042
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Accuracy and reliability of craniometric measurements on lateral cephalometry and 3D measurements on CBCT scans.
    Gribel BF, Gribel MN, Frazäo DC, McNamara JA, Manzi FR.
    Angle Orthod; 2011 Jan; 81(1):26-35. PubMed ID: 20936951
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 45.