163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35140566)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. Comparison of cephalometric measurements between conventional and automatic cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural network.
Jeon S; Lee KC
Prog Orthod; 2021 May; 22(1):14. PubMed ID: 34056670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Comparison of a tridimensional cephalometric analysis performed on 3T-MRI compared with CBCT: a pilot study in adults.
Maspero C; Abate A; Bellincioni F; Cavagnetto D; Lanteri V; Costa A; Farronato M
Prog Orthod; 2019 Oct; 20(1):40. PubMed ID: 31631241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Evaluation and comparison of smartphone application tracing, web based artificial intelligence tracing and conventional hand tracing methods.
Kılınç DD; Kırcelli BH; Sadry S; Karaman A
J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Nov; 123(6):e906-e915. PubMed ID: 35901950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of Soft Tissue Landmark Reliability between Manual and Computerized Plotting Methods.
Kasinathan G; Kommi PB; Kumar SM; Yashwant A; Arani N; Sabapathy S
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2017 Apr; 18(4):317-321. PubMed ID: 28349911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Validity and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements obtained from digital photographs of analogue headfilms.
Grybauskas S; Balciuniene I; Vetra J
Stomatologija; 2007; 9(4):114-20. PubMed ID: 18303276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Evaluation of an online website-based platform for cephalometric analysis.
Alqahtani H
J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2020 Feb; 121(1):53-57. PubMed ID: 31059836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
