487 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25176496)
1. Accuracy of three-dimensional, paper-based models generated using a low-cost, three-dimensional printer.
Olszewski R; Szymor P; Kozakiewicz M
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2014 Dec; 42(8):1847-52. PubMed ID: 25176496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Accuracy of open-source software segmentation and paper-based printed three-dimensional models.
Szymor P; Kozakiewicz M; Olszewski R
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2016 Feb; 44(2):202-9. PubMed ID: 26748414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Experimental Validation of Plastic Mandible Models Produced by a "Low-Cost" 3-Dimensional Fused Deposition Modeling Printer.
Maschio F; Pandya M; Olszewski R
Med Sci Monit; 2016 Mar; 22():943-57. PubMed ID: 27003456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Inaccuracies in additive manufactured medical skull models caused by the DICOM to STL conversion process.
Huotilainen E; Jaanimets R; Valášek J; Marcián P; Salmi M; Tuomi J; Mäkitie A; Wolff J
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2014 Jul; 42(5):e259-65. PubMed ID: 24268714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A new, highly precise measurement technology for the in vitro evaluation of the accuracy of digital imaging data.
von Wilmowsky C; Bergauer B; Nkenke E; Neukam FW; Neuhuber W; Lell M; Keller A; Eitner S; Matta RE
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2015 Oct; 43(8):1335-9. PubMed ID: 26189144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Validation of anatomical landmarks-based registration for image-guided surgery: an in-vitro study.
Sun Y; Luebbers HT; Agbaje JO; Schepers S; Vrielinck L; Lambrichts I; Politis C
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2013 Sep; 41(6):522-6. PubMed ID: 23273492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Segmentation process significantly influences the accuracy of 3D surface models derived from cone beam computed tomography.
Fourie Z; Damstra J; Schepers RH; Gerrits PO; Ren Y
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Apr; 81(4):e524-30. PubMed ID: 21733649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Point-to-point registration with mandibulo-maxillary splint in open and closed jaw position. Evaluation of registration accuracy for computer-aided surgery of the mandible.
Bettschart C; Kruse A; Matthews F; Zemann W; Obwegeser JA; Grätz KW; Lübbers HT
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2012 Oct; 40(7):592-8. PubMed ID: 22079336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Accuracy and repeatability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurements used in the determination of facial indices in the laboratory setup.
Moerenhout BA; Gelaude F; Swennen GR; Casselman JW; Van Der Sloten J; Mommaerts MY
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2009 Jan; 37(1):18-23. PubMed ID: 18815053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Can an entry-level 3D printer create high-quality anatomical models? Accuracy assessment of mandibular models printed by a desktop 3D printer and a professional device.
Hatz CR; Msallem B; Aghlmandi S; Brantner P; Thieringer FM
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2020 Jan; 49(1):143-148. PubMed ID: 31300302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Additive Manufacturing of Anatomical Models from Computed Tomography Scan Data.
Gür Y
Mol Cell Biomech; 2014 Dec; 11(4):249-58. PubMed ID: 26336695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Trueness of cone-beam computed tomography-derived skull models fabricated by different technology-based three-dimensional printers.
Wang X; Shujaat S; Shaheen E; Ferraris E; Jacobs R
BMC Oral Health; 2023 Jun; 23(1):397. PubMed ID: 37328901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The validity of transverse intermaxillary analysis by traditional PA cephalometry compared with cone-beam computed tomography.
Cheung G; Goonewardene MS; Islam SM; Murray K; Koong B
Aust Orthod J; 2013 May; 29(1):86-95. PubMed ID: 23785942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The effect of the angle of acuteness of additive manufactured models and the direction of printing on the dimensional fidelity: clinical implications.
Ide Y; Nayar S; Logan H; Gallagher B; Wolfaardt J
Odontology; 2017 Jan; 105(1):108-115. PubMed ID: 26995273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Three-dimensional accuracy of measurements made with software on cone-beam computed tomography images.
Lagravère MO; Carey J; Toogood RW; Major PW
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jul; 134(1):112-6. PubMed ID: 18617110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Accuracy of 3D Printed Models Created by Two Technologies of Printers with Different Designs of Model Base.
Rungrojwittayakul O; Kan JY; Shiozaki K; Swamidass RS; Goodacre BJ; Goodacre CJ; Lozada JL
J Prosthodont; 2020 Feb; 29(2):124-128. PubMed ID: 31498957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Validation of cone beam computed tomography-based tooth printing using different three-dimensional printing technologies.
Khalil W; EzEldeen M; Van De Casteele E; Shaheen E; Sun Y; Shahbazian M; Olszewski R; Politis C; Jacobs R
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2016 Mar; 121(3):307-15. PubMed ID: 26868470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Accuracy of medical models made by additive manufacturing (rapid manufacturing).
Salmi M; Paloheimo KS; Tuomi J; Wolff J; Mäkitie A
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2013 Oct; 41(7):603-9. PubMed ID: 23333490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
