126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26005455)
1. Efficacy of a Newly Designed Cephalometric Analysis Software for McNamara Analysis in Comparison with Dolphin Software.
Nouri M; Hamidiaval S; Akbarzadeh Baghban A; Basafa M; Fahim M
J Dent (Tehran); 2015 Jan; 12(1):60-9. PubMed ID: 26005455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reliability and validity of the Digigraph 100 in orthodontic diagnosis.
Doll GM; Zentner A; Krummenauer F; Gärtner H
J Orofac Orthop; 2001 Mar; 62(2):116-32. PubMed ID: 11304928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography.
Moshiri M; Scarfe WC; Hilgers ML; Scheetz JP; Silveira AM; Farman AG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):550-60. PubMed ID: 17920510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Concurrent validity and reliability of cephalometric analysis using smartphone apps and computer software.
Livas C; Delli K; Spijkervet FKL; Vissink A; Dijkstra PU
Angle Orthod; 2019 Nov; 89(6):889-896. PubMed ID: 31282737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of Cephalometric Measurements Performed on Smartphone-Based Application and Computer-Based Imaging Software: A Comparative Study.
Chugh VK; Bhatia NK; Shastri D; Shankar SP; Singh S; Sardana R
Turk J Orthod; 2023 Jun; 36(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 37346006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Picture archiving and communications systems: a study of reliability of orthodontic cephalometric analysis.
Tan SS; Ahmad S; Moles DR; Cunningham SJ
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Oct; 33(5):537-43. PubMed ID: 21106665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of the accuracy of fully automatic cephalometric analysis software with artificial intelligence algorithm.
Duran GS; Gökmen Ş; Topsakal KG; Görgülü S
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2023 Aug; 26(3):481-490. PubMed ID: 36648374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings.
Sayinsu K; Isik F; Trakyali G; Arun T
Eur J Orthod; 2007 Feb; 29(1):105-8. PubMed ID: 17290023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparing a Fully Automated Cephalometric Tracing Method to a Manual Tracing Method for Orthodontic Diagnosis.
Tsolakis IA; Tsolakis AI; Elshebiny T; Matthaios S; Palomo JM
J Clin Med; 2022 Nov; 11(22):. PubMed ID: 36431331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Dolphin Imaging Software: an analysis of the accuracy of cephalometric digitization and orthognathic prediction.
Power G; Breckon J; Sherriff M; McDonald F
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2005 Sep; 34(6):619-26. PubMed ID: 15916879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Photographic Assessment of Cephalometric Measurements in Skeletal Class II Cases: A Comparative Study.
Mehta P; Sagarkar RM; Mathew S
J Clin Diagn Res; 2017 Jun; 11(6):ZC60-ZC64. PubMed ID: 28764295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparative analysis of angular cephalometric values between CBCT generated lateral cephalograms versus digitized conventional lateral cephalograms.
Chung RR; Lagravere MO; Flores-Mir C; Heo G; Carey JP; Major PW
Int Orthod; 2009 Dec; 7(4):308-21. PubMed ID: 20303918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Soft Tissue Cephalometric Standards based on NHP in a Sample of Iranian Adults.
Ahangar Atashi MH; Kachooei M
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects; 2008; 2(2):53-7. PubMed ID: 23289059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Digital and manual cephalometric analysis.
Thurzo A; Javorka V; Stanko P; Lysy J; Suchancova B; Lehotska V; Valkovic L; Makovnik M
Bratisl Lek Listy; 2010; 111(2):97-100. PubMed ID: 20429323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of fully automated cephalometric measurements obtained from web-based artificial intelligence driven platform.
Mahto RK; Kafle D; Giri A; Luintel S; Karki A
BMC Oral Health; 2022 Apr; 22(1):132. PubMed ID: 35440037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. The results of cephalometric analysis in the dynamics of orthodontic treatment of patients with transversal anomalies of occlusion.
Yakymets AV; Drohomyretska MS; Doroshenko OM; Hermanchuk SM; Bilous MK; Omelianenko OA; Struk VI
Wiad Lek; 2018; 71(7):1206-1213. PubMed ID: 30448786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
