162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20050733)
1. Evaluation of CBCT digital models and traditional models using the Little's Index.
Kau CH; Littlefield J; Rainy N; Nguyen JT; Creed B
Angle Orthod; 2010 May; 80(3):435-9. PubMed ID: 20050733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. The reliability of Little's Irregularity Index for the upper dental arch using three dimensional (3D) digital models.
Burns A; Dowling AH; Garvey TM; Fleming GJ
J Dent; 2014 Oct; 42(10):1320-6. PubMed ID: 25064042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A Comparison of the Accuracy of Linear Measurements Obtained from Cone Beam Computerized Tomography Images and Digital Models.
Creed B; Kau CH; English JD; Xia JJ; Lee RP
Semin Orthod; 2011 Mar; 17(1):49-56. PubMed ID: 26568670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dimensional accuracy of digital dental models from cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions according to time elapsed after the impressions.
Lee SM; Hou Y; Cho JH; Hwang HS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Feb; 149(2):287-94. PubMed ID: 26827986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Newly defined landmarks for a three-dimensionally based cephalometric analysis: a retrospective cone-beam computed tomography scan review.
Lee M; Kanavakis G; Miner RM
Angle Orthod; 2015 Jan; 85(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 24866835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Reproducibility and accuracy of linear measurements on dental models derived from cone-beam computed tomography compared with digital dental casts.
de Waard O; Rangel FA; Fudalej PS; Bronkhorst EM; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM; Breuning KH
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Sep; 146(3):328-36. PubMed ID: 25172255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements.
Baumgaertel S; Palomo JM; Palomo L; Hans MG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):19-25; discussion 25-8. PubMed ID: 19577143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Surface analysis of study models generated from OrthoCAD and cone-beam computed tomography imaging.
Lightheart KG; English JD; Kau CH; Akyalcin S; Bussa HI; McGrory KR; McGrory KJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Jun; 141(6):686-93. PubMed ID: 22640670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Diagnostic accuracy of impression-free digital models.
Akyalcin S; Cozad BE; English JD; Colville CD; Laman S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Dec; 144(6):916-22. PubMed ID: 24286915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Artifact-resistant superimposition of digital dental models and cone-beam computed tomography images.
Lin HH; Chiang WC; Lo LJ; Sheng-Pin Hsu S; Wang CH; Wan SY
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2013 Nov; 71(11):1933-47. PubMed ID: 23911142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Comparison of two cone beam computed tomographic systems versus panoramic imaging for localization of impacted maxillary canines and detection of root resorption.
Alqerban A; Jacobs R; Fieuws S; Willems G
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Feb; 33(1):93-102. PubMed ID: 21270321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of dentoskeletal changes after asymmetric rapid maxillary expansion.
Baka ZM; Akin M; Ucar FI; Ileri Z
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Jan; 147(1):61-71. PubMed ID: 25533073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of 6 cone-beam computed tomography systems for image quality and detection of simulated canine impaction-induced external root resorption in maxillary lateral incisors.
Alqerban A; Jacobs R; Fieuws S; Nackaerts O; ; Willems G
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Sep; 140(3):e129-39. PubMed ID: 21889061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Digital replacement of the distorted dentition acquired by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT): a pilot study.
Nairn NJ; Ayoub AF; Barbenel J; Moos K; Naudi K; Ju X; Khambay BS
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2013 Nov; 42(11):1488-93. PubMed ID: 23644040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction.
Burzynski JA; Firestone AR; Beck FM; Fields HW; Deguchi T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Apr; 153(4):534-541. PubMed ID: 29602345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
