185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19413396)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis.
Celik E; Polat-Ozsoy O; Toygar Memikoglu TU
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):241-6. PubMed ID: 19237509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Measurements from conventional, digital and CT-derived cephalograms: a comparative study.
Ghoneima A; Albarakati S; Baysal A; Uysal T; Kula K
Aust Orthod J; 2012 Nov; 28(2):232-9. PubMed ID: 23304973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods.
Polat-Ozsoy O; Gokcelik A; Toygar Memikoglu TU
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):254-9. PubMed ID: 19349417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. A comparison between 2D and 3D cephalometry on CBCT scans of human skulls.
van Vlijmen OJ; Maal T; Bergé SJ; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 Feb; 39(2):156-60. PubMed ID: 20044238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of hand-traced and computerized cephalograms: landmark identification, measurement, and superimposition accuracy.
Roden-Johnson D; English J; Gallerano R
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Apr; 133(4):556-64. PubMed ID: 18405820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program.
Periago DR; Scarfe WC; Moshiri M; Scheetz JP; Silveira AM; Farman AG
Angle Orthod; 2008 May; 78(3):387-95. PubMed ID: 18416632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Accuracy of landmark identification on postero-anterior cephalograms.
Sicurezza E; Greco M; Giordano D; Maiorana F; Leonardi R
Prog Orthod; 2012 Sep; 13(2):132-40. PubMed ID: 23021116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Precision of measurements on conventional negative 'bones white' and inverted greyscale 'bones black' digital lateral cephalograms.
Borrie F; Thomson D; McIntyre GT
Eur J Orthod; 2012 Feb; 34(1):57-61. PubMed ID: 21300728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Three-dimensional cephalometric norms of Chinese adults in Hong Kong with balanced facial profile.
Cheung LK; Chan YM; Jayaratne YS; Lo J
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2011 Aug; 112(2):e56-73. PubMed ID: 21665497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Validity of using fixation screws/wires as alternative landmarks for cephalometric evaluation after LeFort I osteotomy.
Liou EJ; Huang CS; Chen YR; Figueroa AA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1998 Mar; 113(3):287-92. PubMed ID: 9517720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Reproducibility of maxillofacial anatomic landmarks on 3-dimensional computed tomographic images determined with the 95% confidence ellipse method.
Muramatsu A; Nawa H; Kimura M; Yoshida K; Maeda M; Katsumata A; Ariji E; Goto S
Angle Orthod; 2008 May; 78(3):396-402. PubMed ID: 18416622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Reliability and the smallest detectable differences of lateral cephalometric measurements.
Damstra J; Huddleston Slater JJ; Fourie Z; Ren Y
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Nov; 138(5):546.e1-8; discussion 546-7. PubMed ID: 21055590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Morphometry of the cranial base and the cranial-cervical-mandibular system in young patients with type II, division 1 malocclusion, using tomographic cone beam.
Bedoya A; Landa Nieto Z; Zuluaga LL; Rocabado M
Cranio; 2014 Jul; 32(3):199-207. PubMed ID: 25000162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effects of image enhancement on reliability of landmark identification in digital cephalometry.
Oshagh M; Shahidi SH; Danaei SH
Indian J Dent Res; 2013; 24(1):98-103. PubMed ID: 23852241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
