161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35271471)
21. Accuracy of three-dimensional measurements obtained from cone beam computed tomography surface-rendered images for cephalometric analysis: influence of patient scanning position.
Hassan B; van der Stelt P; Sanderink G
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Apr; 31(2):129-34. PubMed ID: 19106265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Cephalometry Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scans.
Cassetta M; Altieri F; Di Giorgio R; Silvestri A
J Craniofac Surg; 2015 Jun; 26(4):e311-5. PubMed ID: 26080244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. From 2D to 3D: an algorithm to derive normal values for 3-dimensional computerized assessment.
Gribel BF; Gribel MN; Manzi FR; Brooks SL; McNamara JA
Angle Orthod; 2011 Jan; 81(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 20936948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Validation of conventional 2D lateral cephalometry using 3D cone beam CT.
Shaw K; McIntyre G; Mossey P; Menhinick A; Thomson D
J Orthod; 2013 Mar; 40(1):22-8. PubMed ID: 23524544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Can artificial intelligence-driven cephalometric analysis replace manual tracing? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Hendrickx J; Gracea RS; Vanheers M; Winderickx N; Preda F; Shujaat S; Jacobs R
Eur J Orthod; 2024 Aug; 46(4):. PubMed ID: 38895901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A comparison between two-dimensional and three-dimensional cephalometry on frontal radiographs and on cone beam computed tomography scans of human skulls.
van Vlijmen OJ; Maal TJ; Bergé SJ; Bronkhorst EM; Katsaros C; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM
Eur J Oral Sci; 2009 Jun; 117(3):300-5. PubMed ID: 19583759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. In vivo reliability of 3D cephalometric landmark determination on magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study.
Juerchott A; Freudlsperger C; Zingler S; Saleem MA; Jende JME; Lux CJ; Bendszus M; Heiland S; Hilgenfeld T
Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Mar; 24(3):1339-1349. PubMed ID: 31352517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Modern 3D cephalometry in pediatric orthodontics-downsizing the FOV and development of a new 3D cephalometric analysis within a minimized large FOV for dose reduction.
Kissel P; Mah JK; Bumann A
Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Jul; 25(7):4651-4670. PubMed ID: 33492515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. In vivo comparison of conventional and cone beam CT synthesized cephalograms.
Kumar V; Ludlow J; Soares Cevidanes LH; Mol A
Angle Orthod; 2008 Sep; 78(5):873-9. PubMed ID: 18298214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Three-dimensional skeletal and dental patterns obtained from cone-beam computer tomography of patients diagnosed as malocclusion class I.
Lee H; Oh HS; Lagravère MO
Int Orthod; 2019 Jun; 17(2):296-303. PubMed ID: 31010730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Cone beam computed tomography for dental and maxillofacial imaging: technique improvement and low-dose protocols.
Feragalli B; Rampado O; Abate C; Macrì M; Festa F; Stromei F; Caputi S; Guglielmi G
Radiol Med; 2017 Aug; 122(8):581-588. PubMed ID: 28365888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison of two cone beam computed tomographic systems versus panoramic imaging for localization of impacted maxillary canines and detection of root resorption.
Alqerban A; Jacobs R; Fieuws S; Willems G
Eur J Orthod; 2011 Feb; 33(1):93-102. PubMed ID: 21270321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Do CBCT scans alter surgical treatment plans? Comparison of preoperative surgical diagnosis using panoramic versus cone-beam CT images.
Wolff C; Mücke T; Wagenpfeil S; Kanatas A; Bissinger O; Deppe H
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2016 Oct; 44(10):1700-1705. PubMed ID: 27567358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Precision of orthodontic cephalometric measurements on ultra low dose-low dose CBCT reconstructed cephalograms.
van Bunningen RH; Dijkstra PU; Dieters A; van der Meer WJ; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM; Ren Y
Clin Oral Investig; 2022 Feb; 26(2):1543-1550. PubMed ID: 34453209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A knowledge-based algorithm for automatic detection of cephalometric landmarks on CBCT images.
Gupta A; Kharbanda OP; Sardana V; Balachandran R; Sardana HK
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2015 Nov; 10(11):1737-52. PubMed ID: 25847662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms.
Cattaneo PM; Bloch CB; Calmar D; Hjortshøj M; Melsen B
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Dec; 134(6):798-802. PubMed ID: 19061807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Accuracy of linear measurements using three imaging modalities: two lateral cephalograms and one 3D model from CBCT data.
Pittayapat P; Bornstein MM; Imada TS; Coucke W; Lambrichts I; Jacobs R
Eur J Orthod; 2015 Apr; 37(2):202-8. PubMed ID: 25161199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Development of imaging selection criteria and procedures should precede cephalometric assessment with cone-beam computed tomography.
Farman AG; Scarfe WC
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Aug; 130(2):257-65. PubMed ID: 16905073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Can modifying shielding, field of view, and exposure settings make the effective dose of a cone-beam computed tomography comparable to traditional radiographs used for orthodontic diagnosis?
Ting S; Attaia D; Johnson KB; Kossa SS; Friedland B; Allareddy V; Masoud MI
Angle Orthod; 2020 Sep; 90(5):655-664. PubMed ID: 33378479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
