150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34605860)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. 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]
6. The validity of two methods of mandibular superimposition: a comparison with tantalum implants.
Springate SD; Jones AG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1998 Mar; 113(3):263-70. PubMed ID: 9517716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Assessing lower incisor inclination change: a comparison of four cephalometric methods.
Jabbal A; Cobourne M; Donaldson N; Bister D
Eur J Orthod; 2016 Apr; 38(2):184-9. PubMed ID: 25888531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
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. Accuracy and reliability of landmark-based, surface-based and voxel-based 3D cone-beam computed tomography superimposition methods.
Ghoneima A; Cho H; Farouk K; Kula K
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2017 Nov; 20(4):227-236. PubMed ID: 28960842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A comparison of 2- and 3-dimensional mandibular superimposition techniques against Björk's structural superimposition method.
Franco CS; Sexton C; Flores-Mir C; Healey D
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2021 Mar; 159(3):e253-e273. PubMed ID: 33541785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Evaluation of extraction and non-extraction treatment effects by two different superimposition methods.
Türköz Ç; İşcan HN
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Dec; 33(6):691-9. PubMed ID: 21378094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Evaluation of 3-dimensional superimposition techniques on various skeletal structures of the head using surface models.
Gkantidis N; Schauseil M; Pazera P; Zorkun B; Katsaros C; Ludwig B
PLoS One; 2015; 10(2):e0118810. PubMed ID: 25706151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of hand-traced and computer-based cephalometric superimpositions.
Huja SS; Grubaugh EL; Rummel AM; Fields HW; Beck FM
Angle Orthod; 2009 May; 79(3):428-35. PubMed ID: 19413396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
