352 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16769498)
1. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of plaster vs digital study models: comparison of peer assessment rating and Bolton analysis and their constituent measurements.
Stevens DR; Flores-Mir C; Nebbe B; Raboud DW; Heo G; Major PW
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Jun; 129(6):794-803. PubMed ID: 16769498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Accuracy of space analysis with emodels and plaster models.
Mullen SR; Martin CA; Ngan P; Gladwin M
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Sep; 132(3):346-52. PubMed ID: 17826603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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; 128(4):431-4. PubMed ID: 16214623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Validity, reliability and reproducibility of three methods used to measure tooth widths for bolton analyses.
Naidu D; Scott J; Ong D; Ho CT
Aust Orthod J; 2009 Nov; 25(2):97-103. PubMed ID: 20043542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Accuracy and validity of space analysis and irregularity index measurements using digital models.
Goonewardene RW; Goonewardene MS; Razza JM; Murray K
Aust Orthod J; 2008 Nov; 24(2):83-90. PubMed ID: 19113071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models.
Quimby ML; Vig KW; Rashid RG; Firestone AR
Angle Orthod; 2004 Jun; 74(3):298-303. PubMed ID: 15264638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital model analysis for the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system for dental casts.
Costalos PA; Sarraf K; Cangialosi TJ; Efstratiadis S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2005 Nov; 128(5):624-9. PubMed ID: 16286210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparing the reliability and accuracy of clinical measurements using plaster model and the digital model system based on crowding severity.
Liang YM; Rutchakitprakarn L; Kuang SH; Wu TY
J Chin Med Assoc; 2018 Sep; 81(9):842-847. PubMed ID: 29395944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Digital and plaster models: a comparison of measurements and times.
Gracco A; Buranello M; Cozzani M; Siciliani G
Prog Orthod; 2007; 8(2):252-9. PubMed ID: 18030371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need scored on plaster and digital models.
Veenema AC; Katsaros C; Boxum SC; Bronkhorst EM; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):281-6. PubMed ID: 19329650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity.
Bootvong K; Liu Z; McGrath C; Hägg U; Wong RW; Bendeus M; Yeung S
Eur J Orthod; 2010 Oct; 32(5):589-95. PubMed ID: 20164126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Determination of tooth-size discrepancy and Bolton ratios using Bibliocast Cécile3 digital models.
Watanabe-Kanno GA; Abrão J; Junior HM; Sánchez-Ayala A; Lagravère MO
Int Orthod; 2010 Sep; 8(3):215-26. PubMed ID: 20739241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Variations in orthodontic treatment planning decisions of Class II patients between virtual 3-dimensional models and traditional plaster study models.
Whetten JL; Williamson PC; Heo G; Varnhagen C; Major PW
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Oct; 130(4):485-91. PubMed ID: 17045148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of orthodontists' perception of treatment need and the peer assessment rating (PAR) index.
McGorray SP; Wheeler TT; Keeling SD; Yurkiewicz L; Taylor MG; King GJ
Angle Orthod; 1999 Aug; 69(4):325-33. PubMed ID: 10456600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions.
Wiranto MG; Engelbrecht WP; Tutein Nolthenius HE; van der Meer WJ; Ren Y
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Jan; 143(1):140-7. PubMed ID: 23273370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Traditional plaster casts and dental digital models: intra-examiner reliability of measurements.
Mangiacapra R; Butti AC; Salvato A; Biagi R
Prog Orthod; 2009; 10(2):48-53. PubMed ID: 20545091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning.
Gül Amuk N; Karsli E; Kurt G
Int Orthod; 2019 Mar; 17(1):151-158. PubMed ID: 30772351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
