152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20936950)
1. Evaluation of the CT scanogram for assessment of craniofacial morphology.
Lee FC; Noar JH; Evans RD
Angle Orthod; 2011 Jan; 81(1):17-25. PubMed ID: 20936950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on spiral computed tomography-derived three-dimensional images and its comparison with digital cephalometric radiography.
Varghese S; Kailasam V; Padmanabhan S; Vikraman B; Chithranjan A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 May; 39(4):216-23. PubMed ID: 20395462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on lateral cephalograms obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans with digital lateral cephalometric radiography: an in vitro study.
Shokri A; Khajeh S; Khavid A
J Craniofac Surg; 2014 Sep; 25(5):1710-3. PubMed ID: 25203572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Adding Depth to Cephalometric Analysis: Comparing Two- and Three-Dimensional Angular Cephalometric Measurements.
Jodeh DS; Kuykendall LV; Ford JM; Ruso S; Decker SJ; Rottgers SA
J Craniofac Surg; 2019 Jul; 30(5):1568-1571. PubMed ID: 31299770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Measurement accuracy of a computer-assisted three-dimensional analysis and a conventional two-dimensional method.
Olmez H; Gorgulu S; Akin E; Bengi AO; Tekdemir I; Ors F
Angle Orthod; 2011 May; 81(3):375-82. PubMed ID: 21261485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of CT scanograms and cephalometric radiographs in craniofacial imaging.
Chidiac JJ; Shofer FS; Al-Kutoub A; Laster LL; Ghafari J
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2002 May; 5(2):104-13. PubMed ID: 12086325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Craniometric study of Thai skull based on three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) data.
Rooppakhun S; Surasith P; Vatanapatimakul N; Kaewprom Y; Sitthiseripratip K
J Med Assoc Thai; 2010 Jan; 93(1):90-8. PubMed ID: 20196417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The reliability of cephalometric measurements in oral and maxillofacial imaging: Cone beam computed tomography versus two-dimensional digital cephalograms.
Hariharan A; Diwakar NR; Jayanthi K; Hema HM; Deepukrishna S; Ghaste SR
Indian J Dent Res; 2016; 27(4):370-377. PubMed ID: 27723632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans.
Kragskov J; Bosch C; Gyldensted C; Sindet-Pedersen S
Cleft Palate Craniofac J; 1997 Mar; 34(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 9138504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Construction and validation of the midsagittal reference plane based on the skull base symmetry for three-dimensional cephalometric craniofacial analysis.
Kim HJ; Kim BC; Kim JG; Zhengguo P; Kang SH; Lee SH
J Craniofac Surg; 2014 Mar; 25(2):338-42. PubMed ID: 24469365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks: an experimental study on skulls.
Hägg U; Cooke MS; Chan TC; Tng TT; Lau PY
Aust Orthod J; 1998 Oct; 15(3):177-85. PubMed ID: 10204427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography.
Moshiri M; Scarfe WC; Hilgers ML; Scheetz JP; Silveira AM; Farman AG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):550-60. PubMed ID: 17920510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Accuracy of linear measurements using three imaging modalities: two lateral cephalograms and one 3D model from CBCT data.
Pittayapat P; Bornstein MM; Imada TS; Coucke W; Lambrichts I; Jacobs R
Eur J Orthod; 2015 Apr; 37(2):202-8. PubMed ID: 25161199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Three-dimensional imaging and osteometry of adult human skulls using helical computed tomography.
Nagashima M; Inoue K; Sasaki T; Miyasaka K; Matsumura G; Kodama G
Surg Radiol Anat; 1998; 20(4):291-7. PubMed ID: 9787398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of common hard tissue cephalometric measurements between computed tomography 3D reconstruction and conventional 2D cephalometric images.
Yitschaky O; Redlich M; Abed Y; Faerman M; Casap N; Hiller N
Angle Orthod; 2011 Jan; 81(1):11-16. PubMed ID: 20936949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
