214 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22184624)
1. The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods.
Albarakati SF; Kula KS; Ghoneima AA
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2012 Jan; 41(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 22184624
[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. Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis.
Goracci C; Ferrari M
Angle Orthod; 2014 May; 84(3):437-42. PubMed ID: 24160993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. The reliability and reproducibility of an Android cephalometric smartphone application in comparison with the conventional method.
Zamrik OM; İşeri H
Angle Orthod; 2021 Mar; 91(2):236-242. PubMed ID: 33367490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Forensic norms of female and male Lebanese adults.
Ayoub F; Yehia M; Rizk A; Al-Tannir M; Abi-Farah A; Hamadeh G
J Forensic Odontostomatol; 2008 Jun; 26(1):18-23. PubMed ID: 22689353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. A comparison of cephalometric measurements: a picture archiving and communication system versus the hand-tracing method--a preliminary study.
Singh P; Davies TI
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Aug; 33(4):350-3. PubMed ID: 20923935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Palestinians norms of Steiner cephalometric analysis.
Hussien E; Al-Khateeb S; Mowais MA
World J Orthod; 2010; 11(4):e5-9. PubMed ID: 21490988
[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. Assessment of the reliability and repeatability of landmarks using 3-D cephalometric software.
Frongia G; Piancino MG; Bracco AA; Crincoli V; Debernardi CL; Bracco P
Cranio; 2012 Oct; 30(4):255-63. PubMed ID: 23156966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of cephalometric analysis using a non-radiographic sonic digitizer (DigiGraph Workstation) with conventional radiography.
Tsang KH; Cooke MS
Eur J Orthod; 1999 Feb; 21(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 10191573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Facial height in Japanese-Brazilian descendants with normal occlusion.
Vieira FP; Pinzan A; Janson G; Fernandes TM; Sathler RC; Henriques RP
Dental Press J Orthod; 2014; 19(5):54-66. PubMed ID: 25715717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Measurements on 3D models of human skulls derived from two different cone beam CT scanners.
van Vlijmen OJ; Rangel FA; Bergé SJ; Bronkhorst EM; Becking AG; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
Clin Oral Investig; 2011 Oct; 15(5):721-7. PubMed ID: 20640463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessment of maxillary position. Implant vs cephalometric methods.
Verayannont P; Hägg U; Wong RW; McGrath C; Yeung S
Angle Orthod; 2010 Sep; 80(5):876-83. PubMed ID: 20578858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Smile analysis in different facial patterns and its correlation with underlying hard tissues.
Grover N; Kapoor DN; Verma S; Bharadwaj P
Prog Orthod; 2015; 16():28. PubMed ID: 26341345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
