153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19905853)
21. Reliability of cephalograms derived of cone beam computed tomography versus lateral cephalograms to estimate cervical vertebrae maturity in a Peruvian population: A retrospective study.
Echevarría-Sánchez G; Arriola-Guillén LE; Malpartida-Carrillo V; Tinedo-López PL; Palti-Menendez R; Guerrero ME
Int Orthod; 2020 Jun; 18(2):258-265. PubMed ID: 32014428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Diagnostic accuracy of lateral cephalograms and cone-beam computed tomography for the assessment of sella turcica bridging.
Acevedo AM; Lagravere-Vich M; Al-Jewair T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2021 Aug; 160(2):231-239. PubMed ID: 33975746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views.
Ludlow JB; Gubler M; Cevidanes L; Mol A
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Sep; 136(3):312.e1-10; discussion 312-3. PubMed ID: 19732656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs.
van Vlijmen OJ; Bergé SJ; Swennen GR; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Jan; 67(1):92-7. PubMed ID: 19070753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Head orientation in CBCT-generated cephalograms.
Cevidanes L; Oliveira AE; Motta A; Phillips C; Burke B; Tyndall D
Angle Orthod; 2009 Sep; 79(5):971-7. PubMed ID: 19705941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Computer-aided cephalometric landmark annotation for CBCT data.
Codari M; Caffini M; Tartaglia GM; Sforza C; Baselli G
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2017 Jan; 12(1):113-121. PubMed ID: 27358080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. [Consistency of the landmark identification on two types of cephalograms from cone-beam CT].
Ma XQ; Zhao N; Dong X; Qian WH
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2021 Oct; 30(5):522-525. PubMed ID: 34888606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry.
Chen YJ; Chen SK; Yao JC; Chang HF
Angle Orthod; 2004 Apr; 74(2):155-61. PubMed ID: 15132440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls.
van Vlijmen OJ; Maal TJ; Bergé SJ; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
Eur J Oral Sci; 2009 Jun; 117(3):300-5. PubMed ID: 19583759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Comparative study of cephalometric measurements using 3 imaging modalities.
Wen J; Liu S; Ye X; Xie X; Li J; Li H; Mei L
J Am Dent Assoc; 2017 Dec; 148(12):913-921. PubMed ID: 29042006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparison of manual, digital and lateral CBCT cephalometric analyses.
Navarro Rde L; Oltramari-Navarro PV; Fernandes TM; Oliveira GF; Conti AC; Almeida MR; Almeida RR
J Appl Oral Sci; 2013; 21(2):167-76. PubMed ID: 23739848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Comparative analysis of upper airway volume with lateral cephalograms and cone-beam computed tomography.
Feng X; Li G; Qu Z; Liu L; Näsström K; Shi XQ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Feb; 147(2):197-204. PubMed ID: 25636553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison of cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures.
Stratemann SA; Huang JC; Maki K; Miller AJ; Hatcher DC
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Feb; 37(2):80-93. PubMed ID: 18239035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms.
Kumar V; Ludlow JB; Mol A; Cevidanes L
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Jul; 36(5):263-9. PubMed ID: 17586852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Accuracy and reliability of cone-beam computed tomography measurements: Influence of head orientation.
El-Beialy AR; Fayed MS; El-Bialy AM; Mostafa YA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Aug; 140(2):157-65. PubMed ID: 21803252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Conventional frontal radiographs compared with frontal radiographs obtained from cone beam computed tomography.
Nur M; Kayipmaz S; Bayram M; Celikoglu M; Kilkis D; Sezgin OS
Angle Orthod; 2012 Jul; 82(4):579-84. PubMed ID: 21999214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Accuracy of the measurements from multiplanar and sagittal reconstructions of CBCT.
Barreto MS; da Silva Barbosa I; Miranda Leite-Ribeiro P; de Araújo TM; Almeida Sarmento V
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2020 May; 23(2):223-228. PubMed ID: 31889381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Automatic landmark identification in cone-beam computed tomography.
Gillot M; Miranda F; Baquero B; Ruellas A; Gurgel M; Al Turkestani N; Anchling L; Hutin N; Biggs E; Yatabe M; Paniagua B; Fillion-Robin JC; Allemang D; Bianchi J; Cevidanes L; Prieto JC
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2023 Nov; 26(4):560-567. PubMed ID: 36811276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Cephalometry Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans.
Cassetta M; Altieri F; Di Giorgio R; Silvestri A
J Craniofac Surg; 2015 Jun; 26(4):e311-5. PubMed ID: 26080244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
