These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27678229)
1. Comparison of the Reliability of Anatomic Landmarks based on PA Cephalometric Radiographs and 3D CT Scans in Patients with Facial Asymmetry. Bajaj K; Rathee P; Jain P; Panwar VR Int J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2011; 4(3):213-23. PubMed ID: 27678229 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of the reliability of craniofacial anatomic landmarks based on cephalometric radiographs and three-dimensional CT scans. Kragskov J; Bosch C; Gyldensted C; Sindet-Pedersen S Cleft Palate Craniofac J; 1997 Mar; 34(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 9138504 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Variance of landmarks in digital evaluations: comparison between CT-based and conventional digital lateral cephalometric radiographs. Greiner M; Greiner A; Hirschfelder U J Orofac Orthop; 2007 Jul; 68(4):290-8. PubMed ID: 17639277 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of the influence of patient positioning on the reliability of lateral cephalometry. David OT; Tuce RA; Munteanu O; Neagu A; Panainte I Radiol Med; 2017 Jul; 122(7):520-529. PubMed ID: 28271360 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of a tridimensional cephalometric analysis performed on 3T-MRI compared with CBCT: a pilot study in adults. Maspero C; Abate A; Bellincioni F; Cavagnetto D; Lanteri V; Costa A; Farronato M Prog Orthod; 2019 Oct; 20(1):40. PubMed ID: 31631241 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The reliability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) - generated frontal cephalograms. Kim SJ; Park SB; Kim YI; Cho BH; Hwang DS J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2012 Dec; 40(8):e331-6. PubMed ID: 22444351 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. A comparison of two-dimensional radiography and three-dimensional computed tomography in angular cephalometric measurements. Nalçaci R; Oztürk F; Sökücü O Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 Feb; 39(2):100-6. PubMed ID: 20100922 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparative study of the deviation of the menton on posteroanterior cephalograms and three-dimensional computed tomography. Lee HJ; Lee S; Lee EJ; Song IJ; Kang BC; Lee JS; Lim HJ; Yoon SJ Imaging Sci Dent; 2016 Mar; 46(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 27051637 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A comparison of frontal radiographs obtained from cone beam CT scans and conventional frontal radiographs of human skulls. van Vlijmen OJ; Bergé SJ; Bronkhorst EM; Swennen GR; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Jul; 38(7):773-8. PubMed ID: 19369033 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) craniofacial cephalometric landmarks on a low-dose 3D computed tomograph. Olszewski R; Reychler H; Cosnard G; Denis JM; Vynckier S; Zech F Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Jul; 37(5):261-7. PubMed ID: 18606747 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls. van Vlijmen OJ; Maal TJ; Bergé SJ; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM Eur J Oral Sci; 2009 Jun; 117(3):300-5. PubMed ID: 19583759 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Cephalometry Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans. Cassetta M; Altieri F; Di Giorgio R; Silvestri A J Craniofac Surg; 2015 Jun; 26(4):e311-5. PubMed ID: 26080244 [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. Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Landmarking and Frankfort Horizontal Plane Construction: Reproducibility of Conventional and Novel Landmarks. Dot G; Rafflenbeul F; Kerbrat A; Rouch P; Gajny L; Schouman T J Clin Med; 2021 Nov; 10(22):. PubMed ID: 34830583 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cephalometric landmark variability among orthodontists and dentomaxillofacial radiologists: a comparative study. Durão AP; Morosolli A; Pittayapat P; Bolstad N; Ferreira AP; Jacobs R Imaging Sci Dent; 2015 Dec; 45(4):213-20. PubMed ID: 26730368 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Measurement accuracy of a computer-assisted three-dimensional analysis and a conventional two-dimensional method. Olmez H; Gorgulu S; Akin E; Bengi AO; Tekdemir I; Ors F Angle Orthod; 2011 May; 81(3):375-82. PubMed ID: 21261485 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]