149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15916879)
21. [The study of automatic cephalometric analysis system].
Zhang X; Zhang Z; Zhang X
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 1999 Mar; 34(2):76-9. PubMed ID: 11834164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Comparison of an imaging software and manual prediction of soft tissue changes after orthognathic surgery.
Ahmad Akhoundi MS; Shirani G; Arshad M; Heidar H; Sodagar A
J Dent (Tehran); 2012; 9(3):178-87. PubMed ID: 23119126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A comparison of hand-tracing and cephalometric analysis computer programs with and without advanced features--accuracy and time demands.
Tsorovas G; Karsten AL
Eur J Orthod; 2010 Dec; 32(6):721-8. PubMed ID: 20554891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A comparison of cephalometric measurements: a picture archiving and communication system versus the hand-tracing method--a preliminary study.
Singh P; Davies TI
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Aug; 33(4):350-3. PubMed ID: 20923935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Picture archiving and communications systems: a study of reliability of orthodontic cephalometric analysis.
Tan SS; Ahmad S; Moles DR; Cunningham SJ
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Oct; 33(5):537-43. PubMed ID: 21106665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Two-dimensional cephalometry and computerized orthognathic surgical treatment planning.
Kusnoto B
Clin Plast Surg; 2007 Jul; 34(3):417-26. PubMed ID: 17692701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A comparison of a computer-based orthognathic surgery prediction system to postsurgical results.
Gerbo LR; Poulton DR; Covell DA; Russell CA
Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 1997; 12(1):55-63. PubMed ID: 9456618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Measuring upper airway volume: accuracy and reliability of Dolphin 3D software compared to manual segmentation in craniosynostosis patients.
de Water VR; Saridin JK; Bouw F; Murawska MM; Koudstaal MJ
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2014 Jan; 72(1):139-44. PubMed ID: 24095009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Technical validation of the Di3D stereophotogrammetry surface imaging system.
Winder RJ; Darvann TA; McKnight W; Magee JD; Ramsay-Baggs P
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2008 Jan; 46(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 17980940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Cephalometric digitization: A determination of the minimum scanner settings necessary for precise landmark identification.
Held CL; Ferguson DJ; Gallo MW
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2001 May; 119(5):472-81. PubMed ID: 11343018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparative cephalometric errors for orthodontic and surgical patients.
Wah PL; Cooke MS; Hägg U
Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 1995; 10(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 9081997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Reproducibility of Computerized Cephalometric Analysis Software Compared with Conventional Manual Tracing for Analyzing Skeletal Stability After Orthognathic Surgery.
Thet PH; Kaboosaya B
J Maxillofac Oral Surg; 2023 Dec; 22(4):833-840. PubMed ID: 38105843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Analysis of tooth movement in extraction cases using three-dimensional reverse engineering technology.
Cha BK; Lee JY; Jost-Brinkmann PG; Yoshida N
Eur J Orthod; 2007 Aug; 29(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 17513876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Endothelial cell density in donor corneas: a comparison of automatic software programs with manual counting.
Hirneiss C; Schumann RG; Grüterich M; Welge-Luessen UC; Kampik A; Neubauer AS
Cornea; 2007 Jan; 26(1):80-3. PubMed ID: 17198018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements.
Baumgaertel S; Palomo JM; Palomo L; Hans MG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):19-25; discussion 25-8. PubMed ID: 19577143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A proposal for soft tissue landmarks for craniofacial analysis using 3-dimensional laser scan imaging.
Baik HS; Lee HJ; Lee KJ
World J Orthod; 2006; 7(1):7-14. PubMed ID: 16548301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparing digital and conventional cephalometric radiographs.
Cohen JM
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Aug; 128(2):157-60. PubMed ID: 16102396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A comparison between radiographic and sonically produced cephalometric values.
Prawat JS; Nieberg L; Cisneros GJ; Acs G
Angle Orthod; 1995; 65(4):271-6. PubMed ID: 7486241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
