392 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22390549)
21. Accuracy of bone surface size and cortical layer thickness measurements using cone beam computerized tomography.
Gerlach NL; Meijer GJ; Borstlap WA; Bronkhorst EM; Bergé SJ; Maal TJ
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Jul; 24(7):793-7. PubMed ID: 22469137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. "Ten-point" 3D cephalometric analysis using low-dosage cone beam computed tomography.
Farronato G; Garagiola U; Dominici A; Periti G; de Nardi S; Carletti V; Farronato D
Prog Orthod; 2010; 11(1):2-12. PubMed ID: 20529623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review.
Fokas G; Vaughn VM; Scarfe WC; Bornstein MM
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():393-415. PubMed ID: 30328204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Accuracy of assessing the mandibular canal on cone-beam computed tomography: a validation study.
Gerlach NL; Ghaeminia H; Bronkhorst EM; Bergé SJ; Meijer GJ; Maal TJ
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2014 Apr; 72(4):666-71. PubMed ID: 24480773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Observation of bifid mandibular canal using cone-beam computerized tomography.
Naitoh M; Hiraiwa Y; Aimiya H; Ariji E
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(1):155-9. PubMed ID: 19344041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Preliminary cone-beam computed tomography study evaluating dental and skeletal changes after treatment with a mandibular Schwarz appliance.
Tai K; Hotokezaka H; Park JH; Tai H; Miyajima K; Choi M; Kai LM; Mishima K
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Sep; 138(3):262.e1-262.e11; discussion 262-3. PubMed ID: 20816294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of different methods to assess alveolar cleft defects in cone beam CT images.
de Rezende Barbosa GL; Wood JS; Pimenta LA; Maria de Almeida S; Tyndall DA
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(2):20150332. PubMed ID: 26648387
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Cone-beam CT for preoperative implant planning in the posterior mandible: visibility of anatomic landmarks.
Lofthag-Hansen S; Gröndahl K; Ekestubbe A
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2009 Sep; 11(3):246-55. PubMed ID: 18783419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Accuracy of linear intraoral measurements using cone beam CT and multidetector CT: a tale of two CTs.
Patcas R; Markic G; Müller L; Ullrich O; Peltomäki T; Kellenberger CJ; Karlo CA
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2012 Dec; 41(8):637-44. PubMed ID: 22554987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Reliability and accuracy of cone beam computed tomography versus conventional multidetector computed tomography for image-guided craniofacial implant planning: An in vitro study.
Dings JP; Verhamme L; Merkx MA; Xi T; Meijer GJ; Maal TJ
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(3):665–672. PubMed ID: 30934042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Accuracy of linear measurements from cone-beam computed tomography-derived surface models of different voxel sizes.
Damstra J; Fourie Z; Huddleston Slater JJ; Ren Y
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Jan; 137(1):16.e1-6; discussion 16-7. PubMed ID: 20122425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Effects of Exposure Parameters and Voxel Size for Cone-Beam Computed Tomography on the Image Matching Accuracy with an Optical Dental Scan Image: An In Vitro Study.
Mai HN; Lee DH
Biomed Res Int; 2021; 2021():6971828. PubMed ID: 34222482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Detection of various anatomic patterns of root canals in mandibular incisors using digital periapical radiography, 3 cone-beam computed tomographic scanners, and micro-computed tomographic imaging.
Paes da Silva Ramos Fernandes LM; Rice D; Ordinola-Zapata R; Alvares Capelozza AL; Bramante CM; Jaramillo D; Christensen H
J Endod; 2014 Jan; 40(1):42-5. PubMed ID: 24331989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparison of 64-Detector-Multislice and Cone Beam Computed Tomographies in the Evaluation of Linear Measurements in the Alveolar Ridge.
Pena de Andrade JG; Valerio CS; de Oliveira Monteiro MA; de Carvalho Machado V; Manzi FR
Int J Prosthodont; 2016; 29(2):132-4. PubMed ID: 26929949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Effect of bone thickness on alveolar bone-height measurements from cone-beam computed tomography images.
Sun Z; Smith T; Kortam S; Kim DG; Tee BC; Fields H
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Feb; 139(2):e117-27. PubMed ID: 21300222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Influence of Head Orientation in Linear Measurement for Implant Planning in Cone Beam Computed Tomography.
Shokri A; Khajeh S; Khavid A; Tabari S; Yarmohammadi S
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2015 Jul; 16(7):542-6. PubMed ID: 26329408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The comparison of roof visibility of the mandibular canal between cone-beam computed tomography scans and panoramic radiograph images as dependent on the cortical bone thickness of the mandible.
Ketabi AR; Zelka A; Lauer HC; Hassfeld S
Int J Implant Dent; 2021 May; 7(1):39. PubMed ID: 34002304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography at different resolutions assessed on the bony covering of the mandibular anterior teeth.
Patcas R; Müller L; Ullrich O; Peltomäki T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Jan; 141(1):41-50. PubMed ID: 22196184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
