164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18449115)
1. Study of available bone for interforaminal implant treatment using cone-beam computed tomography.
Madrigal C; Ortega R; Meniz C; López-Quiles J
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal; 2008 May; 13(5):E307-12. PubMed ID: 18449115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Accuracy of linear measurements using cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in dental implant treatment planning.
Luangchana P; Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S; Kiattavorncharoen S; Jirajariyavej B
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(6):1287-94. PubMed ID: 26574854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images.
Correa LR; Spin-Neto R; Stavropoulos A; Schropp L; da Silveira HE; Wenzel A
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2014 Jun; 25(6):690-5. PubMed ID: 23442085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of the relationship between appearances of the lingual foramen on panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography.
Isman O; Kayar S; Surmelioglu D; Ciftci ME; Aktan AM
Niger J Clin Pract; 2020 Feb; 23(2):205-211. PubMed ID: 32031095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Available bone morphology and status of neural structures in the mandibular interforaminal region: three-dimensional analysis of anatomical structures.
Goller Bulut D; Köse E
Surg Radiol Anat; 2018 Nov; 40(11):1243-1252. PubMed ID: 29766231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Implant treatment planning regarding augmentation procedures: panoramic radiographs vs. cone beam computed tomography images.
Dagassan-Berndt DC; Zitzmann NU; Walter C; Schulze RK
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Aug; 27(8):1010-6. PubMed ID: 26227397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Relationship between CBCT and panoramic images of the morphology and angulation of the posterior mandibular jaw bone.
Çiftçi ME; Aktan AM; İşman Ö; Yıldırım E
Surg Radiol Anat; 2016 Apr; 38(3):313-20. PubMed ID: 26370261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The influence of dental implants in periapical and panoramic radiographs and cone beam computed tomography images: a clinical study.
Felix RP; Shinkai RSA; Rockenbach MIB
Gen Dent; 2018; 66(2):e1-e6. PubMed ID: 29513241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Assessing the Accuracy of Cone-Beam Computerized Tomography in Measuring Thinning Oral and Buccal Bone.
Raskó Z; Nagy L; Radnai M; Piffkó J; Baráth Z
J Oral Implantol; 2016 Jun; 42(3):311-4. PubMed ID: 26645480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Investigation the anterior mandibular lingual concavity by using cone-beam computed tomography.
Çitir M; Gunduz K; Kasap P
Folia Morphol (Warsz); 2021; 80(4):916-922. PubMed ID: 33084005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Analysis of digitalized panorama and cone beam computed tomographic image distortion for the diagnosis of dental implant surgery.
Yim JH; Ryu DM; Lee BS; Kwon YD
J Craniofac Surg; 2011 Mar; 22(2):669-73. PubMed ID: 21415634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessment of the visibility and characteristics of the mandibular incisive canal: cone beam computed tomography versus panoramic radiography.
Sahman H; Sekerci AE; Sisman Y; Payveren M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2014; 29(1):71-8. PubMed ID: 24451856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Mandibular incisive canal in Han Chinese using cone beam computed tomography.
Kong N; Hui M; Miao F; Yuan H; Du Y; Chen N
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2016 Sep; 45(9):1142-6. PubMed ID: 27184354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Magnetic resonance imaging in zirconia-based dental implantology.
Duttenhoefer F; Mertens ME; Vizkelety J; Gremse F; Stadelmann VA; Sauerbier S
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2015 Oct; 26(10):1195-202. PubMed ID: 24893967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Analysis of the frequency of visualization of morphological variations in anatomical bone features in the mandibular interforaminal region through cone-beam computed tomography.
do Carmo Oliveira M; Tedesco TK; Gimenez T; Allegrini S
Surg Radiol Anat; 2018 Oct; 40(10):1119-1131. PubMed ID: 29785677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of Lingual Concavities in Submandibular Fossa Region in Patients requiring Dental Implants-A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study.
Rajput BS; Merita S; Parihar AS; Vyas T; Kaur P; Chansoria S
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Nov; 19(11):1329-1333. PubMed ID: 30602636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Characteristics of intrabony nerve canals in mandibular interforaminal region by using cone-beam computed tomography and a recommendation of safe zone for implant and bone harvesting.
Yang XW; Zhang FF; Li YH; Wei B; Gong Y
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2017 Jun; 19(3):530-538. PubMed ID: 28374431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Preoperative assessment of the mandibular canal in implant surgery: comparison of rotational panoramic radiography (OPG), computed tomography (CT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for preoperative assessment in implant surgery.
Pertl L; Gashi-Cenkoglu B; Reichmann J; Jakse N; Pertl C
Eur J Oral Implantol; 2013; 6(1):73-80. PubMed ID: 23513204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Using cone beam computed tomography to determine safe regions for implant placement.
Sokhn S; Nasseh I; Noujeim M
Gen Dent; 2011; 59(2):e72-7. PubMed ID: 21903512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Anatomical variations in the interforaminal regions of candidates for implant-assisted overdentures: a cross-sectional CBCT analysis.
Safi Y; Amid R; Vasegh Z; Ghazizadeh Ahsaie M
Gen Dent; 2020; 68(6):11-16. PubMed ID: 33136039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
