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

246 related items for PubMed ID: 18249296

  • 1. Evaluation of a software program for applying the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system to digital casts.
    Hildebrand JC, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Sivik M, Hans M.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Feb; 133(2):283-9. PubMed ID: 18249296
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts.
    Okunami TR, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Evans CA, Sadowsky C, Fadavi S.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Jan; 131(1):51-6. PubMed ID: 17208106
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 5. Treatment outcomes in a graduate orthodontic clinic for cases defined by the American Board of Orthodontics malocclusion categories.
    Campbell CL, Roberts WE, Hartsfield JK, Qi R.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Dec; 132(6):822-9. PubMed ID: 18068603
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Interexaminer and intraexaminer reliabilities of 3-dimensional orthodontic digital setups.
    Fabels LN, Nijkamp PG.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Dec; 146(6):806-11. PubMed ID: 25432262
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Need for training sessions for orthodontists in the use of the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.
    Murakami K, Deguchi T, Hashimoto T, Imai M, Miyawaki S, Takano-Yamamoto T.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):427.e1-6. PubMed ID: 17920490
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Comparison of prospectively and retrospectively selected American Board of Orthodontics cases.
    Struble BH, Huang GJ.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Jan; 137(1):6.e1-8; discussion 6-8. PubMed ID: 20122416
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. [Validation of subjective and objective evaluation methods for orthodontic treatment outcome].
    Song GY, Jiang RP, Zhang XY, Liu SQ, Yu XN, Chen Q, Weng XR, Wu WZ, Su H, Ren C, Shan RK, Geng Z, Xu TM, Research Group of Establishing Chinese Evaluation Standard of Orthodontic Treatment Outcome.
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2015 Feb 18; 47(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 25686336
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 14. Validation of the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System for assessing the treatment outcomes of Chinese patients.
    Song GY, Baumrind S, Zhao ZH, Ding Y, Bai YX, Wang L, He H, Shen G, Li WR, Wu WZ, Ren C, Weng XR, Geng Z, Xu TM.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Sep 18; 144(3):391-7. PubMed ID: 23992811
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Visual application of the American Board of Orthodontics Grading System.
    Scott SA, Freer TJ.
    Aust Orthod J; 2005 May 18; 21(1):55-60. PubMed ID: 16433082
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Relationship between index of complexity, outcome and need, dental aesthetic index, peer assessment rating index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.
    Onyeaso CO, Begole EA.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Feb 18; 131(2):248-52. PubMed ID: 17276867
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.
    Djeu G, Shelton C, Maganzini A.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Sep 18; 128(3):292-8; discussion 298. PubMed ID: 16168325
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Accuracy of digital American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index measurements.
    Dragstrem K, Galang-Boquiren MT, Obrez A, Costa Viana MG, Grubb JE, Kusnoto B.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Jul 18; 148(1):60-6. PubMed ID: 26124028
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models.
    Mayers M, Firestone AR, Rashid R, Vig KW.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Oct 18; 128(4):431-4. PubMed ID: 16214623
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Assessing treatment outcomes for a graduate orthodontics program: follow-up study for the classes of 2001-2003.
    Knierim K, Roberts WE, Hartsfield J.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Nov 18; 130(5):648-55, 655.e1-3. PubMed ID: 17110263
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 13.