463 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24703281)
1. Comparison of virtual and manual tooth setups with digital and plaster models in extraction cases.
Im J; Cha JY; Lee KJ; Yu HS; Hwang CJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Apr; 145(4):434-42. PubMed ID: 24703281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning.
Gül Amuk N; Karsli E; Kurt G
Int Orthod; 2019 Mar; 17(1):151-158. PubMed ID: 30772351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of occlusal contacts among different groups of malocclusion using 3D digital models.
Al-Rayes NZ; Hajeer MY
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2014 Jan; 15(1):46-55. PubMed ID: 24939264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Longitudinal evaluation of dental arch asymmetry in Class II subdivision malocclusion with 3-dimensional digital models.
Veli I; Yuksel B; Uysal T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Jun; 145(6):763-70. PubMed ID: 24880847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in nonextraction, 2 maxillary premolar extraction, and 4 premolar extraction protocols with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.
Akinci Cansunar H; Uysal T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 May; 145(5):595-602. PubMed ID: 24785923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Discriminant factor analysis of dental arch dimensions with 3-dimensional virtual models.
Slaj M; Spalj S; Jelusic D; Slaj M
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Nov; 140(5):680-7. PubMed ID: 22051488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of tip and torque on virtual study models: a validation study.
Huanca Ghislanzoni LT; Lineberger M; Cevidanes LH; Mapelli A; Sforza C; McNamara JA
Prog Orthod; 2013 Jul; 14():19. PubMed ID: 24325839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity.
Bootvong K; Liu Z; McGrath C; Hägg U; Wong RW; Bendeus M; Yeung S
Eur J Orthod; 2010 Oct; 32(5):589-95. PubMed ID: 20164126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of digital and manual orthodontic diagnostic setups in non-extraction cases using ABO model grading system: an in-vitro study.
Shakr S; Negm I; Saifeldin H
BMC Oral Health; 2024 Feb; 24(1):207. PubMed ID: 38336704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A 3-Dimensional Facial Morpho-Dynamic Database in the development of a prediction model in orthognathic surgery.
Peretta R; Concheri G; Comelli D; Meneghello R; Galzignato PF; Ferronato G
Prog Orthod; 2008; 9(2):8-19. PubMed ID: 19350055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Predicting tooth-size discrepancy: A new formula utilizing revised landmarks and 3-dimensional laser scanning technology.
Bailey E; Nelson G; Miller AJ; Andrews L; Johnson E
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Apr; 143(4):574-85. PubMed ID: 23561420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of linear measurements and analyses taken from plaster models and three-dimensional images.
Porto BG; Porto TS; Silva MB; Grehs RA; Pinto Ados S; Bhandi SH; Tonetto MR; Bandéca MC; dos Santos-Pinto LA
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2014 Nov; 15(6):681-7. PubMed ID: 25825090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A new system for scanning, measuring and analyzing dental casts based on a 3D holographic sensor.
Redlich M; Weinstock T; Abed Y; Schneor R; Holdstein Y; Fischer A
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2008 May; 11(2):90-5. PubMed ID: 18416750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [The comparison analysis of the line measurements between plaster and virtual orthodontic 3D models].
Jedlińska A
Ann Acad Med Stetin; 2008; 54(2):106-13. PubMed ID: 19374240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models.
Zilberman O; Huggare JA; Parikakis KA
Angle Orthod; 2003 Jun; 73(3):301-6. PubMed ID: 12828439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Virtual setup: application in orthodontic practice.
Camardella LT; Rothier EK; Vilella OV; Ongkosuwito EM; Breuning KH
J Orofac Orthop; 2016 Nov; 77(6):409-419. PubMed ID: 27595882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Tooth size and dental arch dimensions: a stereophotogrammetric study in Southeast Asian Malays.
Al-Khatib AR; Rajion ZA; Masudi SM; Hassan R; Anderson PJ; Townsend GC
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2011 Nov; 14(4):243-53. PubMed ID: 22008304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques.
Hazeveld A; Huddleston Slater JJ; Ren Y
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Jan; 145(1):108-15. PubMed ID: 24373661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
