166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33882247)
1. Artificial intelligence-based cephalometric landmark annotation and measurements according to Arnett's analysis: can we trust a bot to do that?
Silva TP; Hughes MM; Menezes LDS; de Melo MFB; Freitas PHL; Takeshita WM
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2022 Sep; 51(6):20200548. PubMed ID: 33882247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessment of accuracy and reproducibility of cephalometric identification performed by 2 artificial intelligence-driven tracing applications and human examiners.
Silva TP; Pinheiro MCR; Freitas DQ; Gaêta-Araujo H; Oliveira-Santos C
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2024 Apr; 137(4):431-440. PubMed ID: 38365543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessment of landmark detection in cephalometric radiographs with different conditions of brightness and contrast using the an artificial intelligence software.
Menezes LDS; Silva TP; Lima Dos Santos MA; Hughes MM; Mariano Souza SDR; Leite Ribeiro PM; Freitas PHL; Takeshita WM
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2023 Nov; 52(8):20230065. PubMed ID: 37869886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Cephalometric analysis performance discrepancy between orthodontists and an artificial intelligence model using lateral cephalometric radiographs.
Guinot-Barona C; Alonso Pérez-Barquero J; Galán López L; Barmak AB; Att W; Kois JC; Revilla-León M
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Apr; 36(4):555-565. PubMed ID: 37882509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Reproducibility of linear and angular cephalometric measurements obtained by an artificial-intelligence assisted software (WebCeph) in comparison with digital software (AutoCEPH) and manual tracing method.
Prince STT; Srinivasan D; Duraisamy S; Kannan R; Rajaram K
Dental Press J Orthod; 2023; 28(1):e2321214. PubMed ID: 37018830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Preciseness of artificial intelligence for lateral cephalometric measurements.
El-Dawlatly M; Attia KH; Abdelghaffar AY; Mostafa YA; Abd El-Ghafour M
J Orofac Orthop; 2024 May; 85(Suppl 1):27-33. PubMed ID: 36894679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Accuracy and clinical validity of automated cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural networks.
Kang S; Kim I; Kim YJ; Kim N; Baek SH; Sung SJ
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2024 Feb; 27(1):64-77. PubMed ID: 37326233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Commercial artificial intelligence lateral cephalometric analysis: part 2-effects of human examiners on artificial intelligence performance, a pilot study.
Lee J; Bae SR; Noh HK
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2023 Nov; 47(6):130-141. PubMed ID: 37997244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluating the accuracy of automated cephalometric analysis based on artificial intelligence.
Bao H; Zhang K; Yu C; Li H; Cao D; Shu H; Liu L; Yan B
BMC Oral Health; 2023 Apr; 23(1):191. PubMed ID: 37005593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis.
Goracci C; Ferrari M
Angle Orthod; 2014 May; 84(3):437-42. PubMed ID: 24160993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Automatic cephalometric landmark identification with artificial intelligence: An umbrella review of systematic reviews.
Polizzi A; Leonardi R
J Dent; 2024 Jul; 146():105056. PubMed ID: 38729291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison between cephalometric measurements using digital manual and web-based artificial intelligence cephalometric tracing software.
Çoban G; Öztürk T; Hashimli N; Yağci A
Dental Press J Orthod; 2022; 27(4):e222112. PubMed ID: 35976288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Cephalometric Landmarks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
de Queiroz Tavares Borges Mesquita G; Vieira WA; Vidigal MTC; Travençolo BAN; Beaini TL; Spin-Neto R; Paranhos LR; de Brito Júnior RB
J Digit Imaging; 2023 Jun; 36(3):1158-1179. PubMed ID: 36604364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Reliability of Frankfort Horizontal Plane with True Horizontal Plane in Cephalometric Measurements.
Devi SS; Dinesh S; Sivakumar A; Nivethigaa B; Alshehri A; Awadh W; Alam MK; Bhandi S; Raj AT; Patil S
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2022 Sep; 23(6):601-605. PubMed ID: 36259298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Artificial intelligence system for automated landmark localization and analysis of cephalometry.
Jiang F; Guo Y; Yang C; Zhou Y; Lin Y; Cheng F; Quan S; Feng Q; Li J
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2023 Jan; 52(1):20220081. PubMed ID: 36279185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Commercial artificial intelligence lateral cephalometric analysis: part 1-the possibility of replacing manual landmarking with artificial intelligence service.
Lee J; Bae SR; Noh HK
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2023 Nov; 47(6):106-118. PubMed ID: 37997242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
