387 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15978824)
41. Three-dimensional analysis in facial asymmetry: comparison with model analysis and conventional two-dimensional analysis.
Moro A; Correra P; Boniello R; Gasparini G; Pelo S
J Craniofac Surg; 2009 Mar; 20(2):417-22. PubMed ID: 19258903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. 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; 134(6):798-802. PubMed ID: 19061807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Validation of a three-dimensional facial scanning system based on structured light techniques.
Ma L; Xu T; Lin J
Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2009 Jun; 94(3):290-8. PubMed ID: 19303659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. A cephalometric comparison of skulls from the fourteenth, sixteenth and twentieth centuries.
Rock WP; Sabieha AM; Evans RI
Br Dent J; 2006 Jan; 200(1):33-7; discussion 25; quiz 50. PubMed ID: 16415834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Validation study of skull three-dimensional computerized tomography measurements.
Hildebolt CF; Vannier MW; Knapp RH
Am J Phys Anthropol; 1990 Jul; 82(3):283-94. PubMed ID: 2375381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Accuracy of craniofacial measurements: computed tomography and three-dimensional computed tomography compared with stereolithographic models.
Frühwald J; Schicho KA; Figl M; Benesch T; Watzinger F; Kainberger F
J Craniofac Surg; 2008 Jan; 19(1):22-6. PubMed ID: 18216660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs.
van Vlijmen OJ; Bergé SJ; Swennen GR; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Jan; 67(1):92-7. PubMed ID: 19070753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Reliability of landmark identification on monitor-displayed lateral cephalometric images.
Yu SH; Nahm DS; Baek SH
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jun; 133(6):790.e1-6; discussion e1. PubMed ID: 18538235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses.
Uysal T; Baysal A; Yagci A
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Oct; 31(5):523-8. PubMed ID: 19443692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Comparison of common hard tissue cephalometric measurements between computed tomography 3D reconstruction and conventional 2D cephalometric images.
Yitschaky O; Redlich M; Abed Y; Faerman M; Casap N; Hiller N
Angle Orthod; 2011 Jan; 81(1):11-16. PubMed ID: 20936949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Adding Depth to Cephalometric Analysis: Comparing Two- and Three-Dimensional Angular Cephalometric Measurements.
Jodeh DS; Kuykendall LV; Ford JM; Ruso S; Decker SJ; Rottgers SA
J Craniofac Surg; 2019 Jul; 30(5):1568-1571. PubMed ID: 31299770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Method selection in craniofacial measurements: advantages and disadvantages of 3D digitization method.
Ozsoy U; Demirel BM; Yildirim FB; Tosun O; Sarikcioglu L
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2009 Jul; 37(5):285-90. PubMed ID: 19179087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Assessment of the distraction regenerate using three-dimensional quantitative computer tomography.
Swennen GR; Eulzer C; Schutyser F; Hüttmann C; Schliephake H
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2005 Jan; 34(1):64-73. PubMed ID: 15617969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Prenatal assessment of the antero-posterior jaw relationship in human fetuses: from anatomical to ultrasound cephalometric analysis.
Captier G; Faure JM; Bäumler M; Canovas F; Demattei C; Daures JP
Cleft Palate Craniofac J; 2011 Jul; 48(4):465-72. PubMed ID: 20815708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods.
Polat-Ozsoy O; Gokcelik A; Toygar Memikoglu TU
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):254-9. PubMed ID: 19349417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. A 3-dimensional method for analyzing facial soft-tissue morphology of patients with jaw deformities.
Terajima M; Furuichi Y; Aoki Y; Goto TK; Tokumori K; Nakasima A
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jun; 135(6):715-22. PubMed ID: 19524830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Comparison of CT scanograms and cephalometric radiographs in craniofacial imaging.
Chidiac JJ; Shofer FS; Al-Kutoub A; Laster LL; Ghafari J
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2002 May; 5(2):104-13. PubMed ID: 12086325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Are collimated low-dose digital radiographs valid for performing Delaire's architectural analysis?
Stamm T; Meier N; Hohoff A; Meyer U; Heinecke A; Joos U
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2003 Dec; 32(6):600-5. PubMed ID: 14636609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Faciometrics: a new syntax for facial feature analysis.
El-Mangoury NH; Mostafa YA; Rasmy EM; Salah A
Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg; 1996; 11(1):71-82. PubMed ID: 9046629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Validity and reliability of a new edge-based computerized method for identification of cephalometric landmarks.
Kazandjian S; Kiliaridis S; Mavropoulos A
Angle Orthod; 2006 Jul; 76(4):619-24. PubMed ID: 16808568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
