388 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16413890)
21. 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]
22. Assessment of accuracy and reproducibility of cephalometric identification performed by 2 artificial intelligence-driven tracing applications and human examiners.
Silva TP; Pinheiro MCR; Freitas DQ; Gaêta-Araujo H; Oliveira-Santos C
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2024 Apr; 137(4):431-440. PubMed ID: 38365543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Validity and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements obtained from digital photographs of analogue headfilms.
Grybauskas S; Balciuniene I; Vetra J
Stomatologija; 2007; 9(4):114-20. PubMed ID: 18303276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Automated identification of cephalometric landmarks:
Hwang HW; Park JH; Moon JH; Yu Y; Kim H; Her SB; Srinivasan G; Aljanabi MNA; Donatelli RE; Lee SJ
Angle Orthod; 2020 Jan; 90(1):69-76. PubMed ID: 31335162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Accuracy of cephalometric landmarks on monitor-displayed radiographs with and without image emboss enhancement.
Leonardi RM; Giordano D; Maiorana F; Greco M
Eur J Orthod; 2010 Jun; 32(3):242-7. PubMed ID: 20022892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography.
Moshiri M; Scarfe WC; Hilgers ML; Scheetz JP; Silveira AM; Farman AG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):550-60. PubMed ID: 17920510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks when undertaking a three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis.
Zamora N; Llamas JM; Cibrián R; Gandia JL; Paredes V
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal; 2012 Jul; 17(4):e678-88. PubMed ID: 22322503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks: an experimental study on skulls.
Hägg U; Cooke MS; Chan TC; Tng TT; Lau PY
Aust Orthod J; 1998 Oct; 15(3):177-85. PubMed ID: 10204427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks.
Liu JK; Chen YT; Cheng KS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Nov; 118(5):535-40. PubMed ID: 11094367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A comparison of the reproducibility of manual tracing and on-screen digitization for cephalometric profile variables.
Dvortsin DP; Sandham A; Pruim GJ; Dijkstra PU
Eur J Orthod; 2008 Dec; 30(6):586-91. PubMed ID: 18719051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo.
Chien PC; Parks ET; Eraso F; Hartsfield JK; Roberts WE; Ofner S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Jul; 38(5):262-73. PubMed ID: 19474253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Is there consistency in cephalometric landmark identification amongst oral and maxillofacial surgeons?
Miloro M; Borba AM; Ribeiro-Junior O; Naclério-Homem MG; Jungner M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2014 Apr; 43(4):445-53. PubMed ID: 24055177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Tracing error with Björk's mandibular structures.
Cook PA; Gravely JF
Angle Orthod; 1988 Apr; 58(2):169-78. PubMed ID: 3164595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Manual tracing versus smartphone application (app) tracing: a comparative study.
Sayar G; Kilinc DD
Acta Odontol Scand; 2017 Nov; 75(8):588-594. PubMed ID: 28793813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Landmark identification on direct digital versus film-based cephalometric radiographs: a human skull study.
Schulze RK; Gloede MB; Doll GM
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2002 Dec; 122(6):635-42. PubMed ID: 12490875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Phosphor-stimulated computed cephalometry: reliability of landmark identification.
Lim KF; Foong KW
Br J Orthod; 1997 Nov; 24(4):301-8. PubMed ID: 9459029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. "The pitfalls and merits of using commonly accepted orthodontic cephalometric analyses".
Murray TM
J Gen Orthod; 1997 Dec; 8(4):6-17. PubMed ID: 9610305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The angle between the Frankfort horizontal and the sella-nasion line. Changes in porion and orbitale position during growth.
Greiner P; Müller B; Dibbets J
J Orofac Orthop; 2004 May; 65(3):217-22. PubMed ID: 15160248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique.
Santoro M; Jarjoura K; Cangialosi TJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Mar; 129(3):345-51. PubMed ID: 16527629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings.
Sayinsu K; Isik F; Trakyali G; Arun T
Eur J Orthod; 2007 Feb; 29(1):105-8. PubMed ID: 17290023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
