211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30888681)
1. Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography for mandibular morphometry.
Tassoker M; Akin D; Aydin Kabakci AD; Sener S
Folia Morphol (Warsz); 2019; 78(4):862-870. PubMed ID: 30888681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessment of the visibility and characteristics of the mandibular incisive canal: cone beam computed tomography versus panoramic radiography.
Sahman H; Sekerci AE; Sisman Y; Payveren M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2014; 29(1):71-8. PubMed ID: 24451856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Use of experimental phantoms to determine the accuracy and reliability of mandibular cortical width measurements by panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography.
Hayashi Y; Ito M; Imanishi Y; Watanabe K; Matsumoto K; Arai Y; Honda K
J Oral Sci; 2020 Jun; 62(3):303-307. PubMed ID: 32522912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of mandibular index values determined from standard panoramic versus cone beam computed tomography reconstructed images.
Koseoglu Secgin C; Gulsahi A; Yavuz Y; Kamburoglu K
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2019 Mar; 127(3):257-264. PubMed ID: 30497908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reliability and validity of mandibular posterior vertical asymmetry index in panoramic radiography compared with cone-beam computed tomography.
Lim YS; Chung DH; Lee JW; Lee SM
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Apr; 153(4):558-567. PubMed ID: 29602348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparative efficacy of digital panoramic radiograph and cone beam computed tomography in locating mandibular foramen.
Alali Y; Mohammed WA; Aldrees AF; Alshamrani AM; Alabdullatif MA; Alhajri SA
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci; 2024 Apr; 28(8):2996-3005. PubMed ID: 38708456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of digital panoramic radiography versus cone beam computerized tomography for measuring alveolar bone.
Tang Z; Liu X; Chen K
Head Face Med; 2017 Feb; 13(1):2. PubMed ID: 28228135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Mandibular incisive canal: cone beam computed tomography.
Pires CA; Bissada NF; Becker JJ; Kanawati A; Landers MA
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 Mar; 14(1):67-73. PubMed ID: 19673957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A retrospective radiographic evaluation of the anterior loop of the mental nerve: comparison between panoramic radiography and cone beam computerized tomography.
Vujanovic-Eskenazi A; Valero-James JM; Sánchez-Garcés MA; Gay-Escoda C
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal; 2015 Mar; 20(2):e239-45. PubMed ID: 25549693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparative analysis of mandibular anatomical variations between panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography.
Neves FS; Nascimento MC; Oliveira ML; Almeida SM; Bóscolo FN
Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2014 Dec; 18(4):419-24. PubMed ID: 23975215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of the morphological changes in the mandible for dentate and totally edentate elderly population using cone-beam computed tomography.
Tozoğlu U; Cakur B
Surg Radiol Anat; 2014 Sep; 36(7):643-9. PubMed ID: 24292424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Mandibular incisive canal in Han Chinese using cone beam computed tomography.
Kong N; Hui M; Miao F; Yuan H; Du Y; Chen N
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2016 Sep; 45(9):1142-6. PubMed ID: 27184354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Prevalence of bifid mandibular canals by cone beam computed tomography.
Villaça-Carvalho MF; Manhães LR; de Moraes ME; Lopes SL
Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2016 Sep; 20(3):289-94. PubMed ID: 27417545
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Relationships between third-molar juxta-apical radiolucencies and mandibular canals in panoramic and cone beam computed tomography images.
Kapila R; Harada N; Araki K; Sano T; Goto TK
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2014 May; 117(5):640-644. PubMed ID: 24725991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Accuracy of linear measurements using cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in dental implant treatment planning.
Luangchana P; Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S; Kiattavorncharoen S; Jirajariyavej B
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(6):1287-94. PubMed ID: 26574854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. To Assess and Evaluate the Variation of Mandibular Anatomy Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography Before Planning an Implant Surgery: A Population-based Retrospective Study.
Kapoor V; Kumar N; Dahiya K; Sikka R; Sirana P; Singh A
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Nov; 19(11):1381-1385. PubMed ID: 30602645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Relationship between CBCT and panoramic images of the morphology and angulation of the posterior mandibular jaw bone.
Çiftçi ME; Aktan AM; İşman Ö; Yıldırım E
Surg Radiol Anat; 2016 Apr; 38(3):313-20. PubMed ID: 26370261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The growth of Medicare rebatable cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography in Australia.
Brown LF; Monsour P
Aust Dent J; 2015 Dec; 60(4):511-9. PubMed ID: 25366248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Validation of cone-beam computed tomography as a predictor of osteoporosis using the Klemetti classification.
Alonso MB; Vasconcelos TV; Lopes LJ; Watanabe PC; Freitas DQ
Braz Oral Res; 2016 May; 30(1):. PubMed ID: 27253142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
