388 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16413890)
1. The accuracy of cephalometric tracing superimposition.
Gliddon MJ; Xia JJ; Gateno J; Wong HT; Lasky RE; Teichgraeber JF; Jia X; Liebschner MA; Lemoine JJ
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Feb; 64(2):194-202. PubMed ID: 16413890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of an automated superimposition method for computer-aided cephalometrics.
Moon JH; Hwang HW; Lee SJ
Angle Orthod; 2020 May; 90(3):390-396. PubMed ID: 33378429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cephalometric superimposition on the cranial base: a review and a comparison of four methods.
Ghafari J; Engel FE; Laster LL
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1987 May; 91(5):403-13. PubMed ID: 3472459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Radiographic evaluation of orthodontic treatment by means of four different cephalometric superimposition methods.
Lenza MA; Carvalho AA; Lenza EB; Lenza MG; Torres HM; Souza JB
Dental Press J Orthod; 2015; 20(3):29-36. PubMed ID: 26154453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Factors influencing superimposition error of 3D cephalometric landmarks by plane orientation method using 4 reference points: 4 point superimposition error regression model.
Hwang JJ; Kim KD; Park H; Park CS; Jeong HG
PLoS One; 2014; 9(11):e110665. PubMed ID: 25372707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of an automated superimposition method based on multiple landmarks for growing patients.
Kim MG; Moon JH; Hwang HW; Cho SJ; Donatelli RE; Lee SJ
Angle Orthod; 2022 Mar; 92(2):226-232. PubMed ID: 34605860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs.
Bruntz LQ; Palomo JM; Baden S; Hans MG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Sep; 130(3):340-8. PubMed ID: 16979492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. United Reference Method for three-dimensional treatment evaluation.
Shahen S; Lagravère MO; Carrino G; Fahim F; Abdelsalam R; Flores-Mir C; Perillo L
Prog Orthod; 2018 Dec; 19(1):47. PubMed ID: 30506410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry.
Chen YJ; Chen SK; Chang HF; Chen KC
Angle Orthod; 2000 Oct; 70(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 11036999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cephalometric superimposition on the occipital condyles as a longitudinal growth assessment reference: I-point and I-curve.
Standerwick R; Roberts E; Hartsfield J; Babler W; Kanomi R
Anat Rec (Hoboken); 2008 Dec; 291(12):1603-10. PubMed ID: 18833570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of hand-traced and computer-based cephalometric superimpositions.
Huja SS; Grubaugh EL; Rummel AM; Fields HW; Beck FM
Angle Orthod; 2009 May; 79(3):428-35. PubMed ID: 19413396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of AudaxCeph®'s fully automated cephalometric tracing technology to a semi-automated approach by human examiners.
Ristau B; Coreil M; Chapple A; Armbruster P; Ballard R
Int Orthod; 2022 Dec; 20(4):100691. PubMed ID: 36114136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The application and accuracy of feature matching on automated cephalometric superimposition.
Jiang Y; Song G; Yu X; Dou Y; Li Q; Liu S; Han B; Xu T
BMC Med Imaging; 2020 Mar; 20(1):31. PubMed ID: 32192440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Longitudinal growth changes of the cranial base from puberty to adulthood. A comparison of different superimposition methods.
Arat ZM; Türkkahraman H; English JD; Gallerano RL; Boley JC
Angle Orthod; 2010 Jul; 80(4):537-44. PubMed ID: 20482360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of landmark identification and linear and angular measurements in conventional and digital cephalometry.
Akhare PJ; Dagab AM; Alle RS; Shenoyd U; Garla V
Int J Comput Dent; 2013; 16(3):241-54. PubMed ID: 24364195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Reliability of landmark identification in cephalometric radiography acquired by a storage phosphor imaging system.
Chen YJ; Chen SK; Huang HW; Yao CC; Chang HF
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Sep; 33(5):301-6. PubMed ID: 15585806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The displacement of craniofacial reference landmarks during puberty: a comparison of three superimposition methods.
Arat ZM; Rübendüz M; Akgül AA
Angle Orthod; 2003 Aug; 73(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 12940557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reliability of cranial base measurements on lateral skull radiographs.
Arponen H; Elf H; Evälahti M; Waltimo-Sirén J
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2008 Nov; 11(4):201-10. PubMed ID: 18950316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Validity and reliability of ear landmarks as reference points for cephalometric analysis.
Chutimanutskul W; Geenty JP; Shen G; Darendeliler MA
World J Orthod; 2007; 8(2):122-8. PubMed ID: 17580505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
