214 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19286874)
1. From alginate impressions to digital virtual models: accuracy and reproducibility.
Dalstra M; Melsen B
J Orthod; 2009 Mar; 36(1):36-41; discussion 14. PubMed ID: 19286874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Evaluation of digital model accuracy and time-dependent deformation of alginate impressions.
Cesur MG; Omurlu IK; Ozer T
Niger J Clin Pract; 2017 Sep; 20(9):1175-1181. PubMed ID: 29072243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Digital versus plaster study models: how accurate and reproducible are they?
Abizadeh N; Moles DR; O'Neill J; Noar JH
J Orthod; 2012 Sep; 39(3):151-9. PubMed ID: 22984099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy.
Keating AP; Knox J; Bibb R; Zhurov AI
J Orthod; 2008 Sep; 35(3):191-201; discussion 175. PubMed ID: 18809782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. On the augmented reproducibility in measurements on 3D orthodontic digital dental models and the definition of feature points.
Jacquet W; Nyssen E; Ibel G; Vannet BV
Aust Orthod J; 2013 May; 29(1):28-33. PubMed ID: 23785935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Digital models vs plaster models using alginate and alginate substitute materials.
Torassian G; Kau CH; English JD; Powers J; Bussa HI; Marie Salas-Lopez A; Corbett JA
Angle Orthod; 2010 Jul; 80(4):474-81. PubMed ID: 20482351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner.
Camardella LT; Breuning H; de Vasconcellos Vilella O
J Orofac Orthop; 2017 May; 78(3):211-220. PubMed ID: 28074260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Accuracy of digital dental models using the low-cost DAVID laser scanner.
Olszewski R; Szyper-Szczurowska J; Opach M; Bednarczyk P; Zapala J; Szczepanik S
Adv Clin Exp Med; 2019 Dec; 28(12):1647-1656. PubMed ID: 31778603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Can the intra-examiner variability of Little's Irregularity Index be improved using 3D digital models of study casts?
Dowling AH; Burns A; Macauley D; Garvey TM; Fleming GJ
J Dent; 2013 Dec; 41(12):1271-80. PubMed ID: 24012518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Influence of standardization on the precision (reproducibility) of dental cast analysis with virtual 3-dimensional models.
Hayashi K; Chung O; Park S; Lee SP; Sachdeva RC; Mizoguchi I
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Mar; 147(3):373-80. PubMed ID: 25726405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Analysis of intra-arch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography.
White AJ; Fallis DW; Vandewalle KS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Apr; 137(4):456.e1-9; discussion 456-7. PubMed ID: 20362900
[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. Intra-arch dimensional measurement validity of laser-scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review.
De Luca Canto G; Pachêco-Pereira C; Lagravere MO; Flores-Mir C; Major PW
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2015 May; 18(2):65-76. PubMed ID: 25677755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques.
Hazeveld A; Huddleston Slater JJ; Ren Y
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Jan; 145(1):108-15. PubMed ID: 24373661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of virtual and manual tooth setups with digital and plaster models in extraction cases.
Im J; Cha JY; Lee KJ; Yu HS; Hwang CJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Apr; 145(4):434-42. PubMed ID: 24703281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Measurements using orthodontic analysis software on digital models obtained by 3D scans of plaster casts : Intrarater reliability and validity.
Czarnota J; Hey J; Fuhrmann R
J Orofac Orthop; 2016 Jan; 77(1):22-30. PubMed ID: 26753549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
