126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34568212)
1. Reliability of mobile application-based cephalometric analysis for chair side evaluation of orthodontic patient in clinical practice.
Barbhuiya MH; Kumar P; Thakral R; Krishnapriya R; Bawa M
J Orthod Sci; 2021; 10():16. PubMed ID: 34568212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of accuracy and reliability of OneCeph digital cephalometric analysis in comparison with manual cephalometric analysis-a cross-sectional study.
Mohan A; Sivakumar A; Nalabothu P
BDJ Open; 2021 Jun; 7(1):22. PubMed ID: 34140466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The reliability and reproducibility of an Android cephalometric smartphone application in comparison with the conventional method.
Zamrik OM; İşeri H
Angle Orthod; 2021 Mar; 91(2):236-242. PubMed ID: 33367490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and OnyxCeph™ Dental Software Measurements on Cephalometric Radiography.
İzgi E; Pekiner FN
Turk J Orthod; 2019 Jun; 32(2):87-95. PubMed ID: 31294411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. The Reliability of Two- and Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Measurements: A CBCT Study.
Li C; Teixeira H; Tanna N; Zheng Z; Chen SHY; Zou M; Chung CH
Diagnostics (Basel); 2021 Dec; 11(12):. PubMed ID: 34943528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cephalometric study to test the reliability of anteroposterior skeletal discrepancy indicators using the twin block appliance.
Trivedi R; Bhattacharya A; Mehta F; Patel D; Parekh H; Gandhi V
Prog Orthod; 2015 Feb; 16():3. PubMed ID: 25769138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Digital evaluation and correlation of facial growth patterns assessed on lateral CEPH and orthopantomogram through ONECEPH mobile application.
Goyal D; Kumar P; Jain S
J Orthod Sci; 2023; 12():29. PubMed ID: 37351393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of hand-traced and computerized cephalograms: landmark identification, measurement, and superimposition accuracy.
Roden-Johnson D; English J; Gallerano R
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Apr; 133(4):556-64. PubMed ID: 18405820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Reliability of four different computerized cephalometric analysis programs.
Erkan M; Gurel HG; Nur M; Demirel B
Eur J Orthod; 2012 Jun; 34(3):318-21. PubMed ID: 21502380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. The accuracy and reliability of WebCeph for cephalometric analysis.
Yassir YA; Salman AR; Nabbat SA
J Taibah Univ Med Sci; 2022 Feb; 17(1):57-66. PubMed ID: 35140566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Lateral cephalometric measurements of Iranians with surgically repaired unilateral cleft lips and palates.
Eslamian L; Latifi F; Hejazi M; Aslani F; Rakhshan V
Int Orthod; 2019 Jun; 17(2):304-311. PubMed ID: 31028018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparison of cephalometric measurements obtained using conventional and digital methods.
Vithanaarachchi N; Chandrasiri A; Nawarathna L
Ceylon Med J; 2020 Sep; 65(3):39-45. PubMed ID: 34800930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
