144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33378429)
1. Evaluation of an automated superimposition method for computer-aided cephalometrics.
Moon JH; Hwang HW; Lee SJ
Angle Orthod; 2020 May; 90(3):390-396. PubMed ID: 33378429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The accuracy of cephalometric tracing superimposition.
Gliddon MJ; Xia JJ; Gateno J; Wong HT; Lasky RE; Teichgraeber JF; Jia X; Liebschner MA; Lemoine JJ
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Feb; 64(2):194-202. PubMed ID: 16413890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of an automated superimposition method based on multiple landmarks for growing patients.
Kim MG; Moon JH; Hwang HW; Cho SJ; Donatelli RE; Lee SJ
Angle Orthod; 2022 Mar; 92(2):226-232. PubMed ID: 34605860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A Superimposition-Based Cephalometric Method to Quantitate Craniofacial Changes.
Al-Taai N; Levring Jäghagen E; Persson M; Ransjö M; Westerlund A
Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 May; 18(10):. PubMed ID: 34069290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cephalometric superimposition on the cranial base: a review and a comparison of four methods.
Ghafari J; Engel FE; Laster LL
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1987 May; 91(5):403-13. PubMed ID: 3472459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Longitudinal growth changes of the cranial base from puberty to adulthood. A comparison of different superimposition methods.
Arat ZM; Türkkahraman H; English JD; Gallerano RL; Boley JC
Angle Orthod; 2010 Jul; 80(4):537-44. PubMed ID: 20482360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of AudaxCeph®'s fully automated cephalometric tracing technology to a semi-automated approach by human examiners.
Ristau B; Coreil M; Chapple A; Armbruster P; Ballard R
Int Orthod; 2022 Dec; 20(4):100691. PubMed ID: 36114136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Reliability of cephalometric landmark identification on three-dimensional computed tomographic images.
Kim JH; An S; Hwang DM
Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Apr; 60(3):320-325. PubMed ID: 34690019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Factors influencing superimposition error of 3D cephalometric landmarks by plane orientation method using 4 reference points: 4 point superimposition error regression model.
Hwang JJ; Kim KD; Park H; Park CS; Jeong HG
PLoS One; 2014; 9(11):e110665. PubMed ID: 25372707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Radiographic evaluation of orthodontic treatment by means of four different cephalometric superimposition methods.
Lenza MA; Carvalho AA; Lenza EB; Lenza MG; Torres HM; Souza JB
Dental Press J Orthod; 2015; 20(3):29-36. PubMed ID: 26154453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The application and accuracy of feature matching on automated cephalometric superimposition.
Jiang Y; Song G; Yu X; Dou Y; Li Q; Liu S; Han B; Xu T
BMC Med Imaging; 2020 Mar; 20(1):31. PubMed ID: 32192440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cephalometric superimposition on the occipital condyles as a longitudinal growth assessment reference: I-point and I-curve.
Standerwick R; Roberts E; Hartsfield J; Babler W; Kanomi R
Anat Rec (Hoboken); 2008 Dec; 291(12):1603-10. PubMed ID: 18833570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessment of automatic cephalometric landmark identification using artificial intelligence.
Bulatova G; Kusnoto B; Grace V; Tsay TP; Avenetti DM; Sanchez FJC
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2021 Dec; 24 Suppl 2():37-42. PubMed ID: 34842346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks when undertaking a three-dimensional (3D) cephalometric analysis.
Zamora N; Llamas JM; Cibrián R; Gandia JL; Paredes V
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal; 2012 Jul; 17(4):e678-88. PubMed ID: 22322503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Comparison of landmark identification and linear and angular measurements in conventional and digital cephalometry.
Akhare PJ; Dagab AM; Alle RS; Shenoyd U; Garla V
Int J Comput Dent; 2013; 16(3):241-54. PubMed ID: 24364195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The displacement of craniofacial reference landmarks during puberty: a comparison of three superimposition methods.
Arat ZM; Rübendüz M; Akgül AA
Angle Orthod; 2003 Aug; 73(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 12940557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Automated identification of cephalometric landmarks:
Hwang HW; Park JH; Moon JH; Yu Y; Kim H; Her SB; Srinivasan G; Aljanabi MNA; Donatelli RE; Lee SJ
Angle Orthod; 2020 Jan; 90(1):69-76. PubMed ID: 31335162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks.
Liu JK; Chen YT; Cheng KS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Nov; 118(5):535-40. PubMed ID: 11094367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparison of scanned lateral cephalograms with corresponding original radiographs.
Bruntz LQ; Palomo JM; Baden S; Hans MG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Sep; 130(3):340-8. PubMed ID: 16979492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
