266 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22322503)
1. A study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks when undertaking a three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis.
Zamora N; Llamas JM; Cibrián R; Gandia JL; Paredes V
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal; 2012 Jul; 17(4):e678-88. PubMed ID: 22322503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reliability of anatomic structures as landmarks in three-dimensional cephalometric analysis using CBCT.
Naji P; Alsufyani NA; Lagravère MO
Angle Orthod; 2014 Sep; 84(5):762-72. PubMed ID: 24364751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of observer reliability of three-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification on subject images from Galileos and i-CAT cone beam CT.
Katkar RA; Kummet C; Dawson D; Moreno Uribe L; Allareddy V; Finkelstein M; Ruprecht A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(9):20130059. PubMed ID: 23833319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Reliability of cephalometric landmark identification on three-dimensional computed tomographic images.
Kim JH; An S; Hwang DM
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Apr; 60(3):320-325. PubMed ID: 34690019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A new mandible-specific landmark reference system for three-dimensional cephalometry using cone-beam computed tomography.
Pittayapat P; Jacobs R; Bornstein MM; Odri GA; Kwon MS; Lambrichts I; Willems G; Politis C; Olszewski R
Eur J Orthod; 2016 Dec; 38(6):563-568. PubMed ID: 26683131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Intraexaminer and interexaminer reliabilities of landmark identification on digitized lateral cephalograms and formatted 3-dimensional cone-beam computerized tomography images.
Lagravère MO; Low C; Flores-Mir C; Chung R; Carey JP; Heo G; Major PW
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 May; 137(5):598-604. PubMed ID: 20451778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 3D landmarks of Craniofacial Imaging and subsequent considerations on superimpositions in orthodontics-The Aarhus perspective.
Cattaneo PM; Yung AKC; Holm A; Mashaly OM; Cornelis MA
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2019 May; 22 Suppl 1():21-29. PubMed ID: 31074143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. In vivo reliability of 3D cephalometric landmark determination on magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study.
Juerchott A; Freudlsperger C; Zingler S; Saleem MA; Jende JME; Lux CJ; Bendszus M; Heiland S; Hilgenfeld T
Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Mar; 24(3):1339-1349. PubMed ID: 31352517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of cephalometric landmark identification on CBCT multiplanar and 3D reconstructions.
Neiva MB; Soares ÁC; Lisboa Cde O; Vilella Ode V; Motta AT
Angle Orthod; 2015 Jan; 85(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 24713068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Precision of manual landmark identification between as-received and oriented volume-rendered cone-beam computed tomography images.
Gupta A; Kharbanda OP; Balachandran R; Sardana V; Kalra S; Chaurasia S; Sardana HK
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2017 Jan; 151(1):118-131. PubMed ID: 28024764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Observer reliability of three-dimensional cephalometric landmark identification on cone-beam computerized tomography.
de Oliveira AE; Cevidanes LH; Phillips C; Motta A; Burke B; Tyndall D
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Feb; 107(2):256-65. PubMed ID: 18718796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Assessment of inter- and intra-operator cephalometric tracings on cone beam CT radiographs: comparison of the precision of the cone beam CT versus the latero-lateral radiograph tracing.
Farronato G; Salvadori S; Nolet F; Zoia A; Farronato D
Prog Orthod; 2014 Jan; 15():1. PubMed ID: 24393493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo.
Oz U; Orhan K; Abe N
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2011 Dec; 40(8):492-500. PubMed ID: 22065798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A knowledge-based algorithm for automatic detection of cephalometric landmarks on CBCT images.
Gupta A; Kharbanda OP; Sardana V; Balachandran R; Sardana HK
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2015 Nov; 10(11):1737-52. PubMed ID: 25847662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
