131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35901950)
1. 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]
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. 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. Manual tracing versus smartphone application (app) tracing: a comparative study.
Sayar G; Kilinc DD
Acta Odontol Scand; 2017 Nov; 75(8):588-594. PubMed ID: 28793813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings.
Meriç P; Naoumova J
Turk J Orthod; 2020 Sep; 33(3):142-149. PubMed ID: 32974059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. A comparative evaluation of concordance and speed between smartphone app-based and artificial intelligence web-based cephalometric tracing software with the manual tracing method: A cross-sectional study.
Gupta S; Shetty S; Natarajan S; Nambiar S; Mv A; Agarwal S
J Clin Exp Dent; 2024 Jan; 16(1):e11-e17. PubMed ID: 38314342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods.
Polat-Ozsoy O; Gokcelik A; Toygar Memikoglu TU
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):254-9. PubMed ID: 19349417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Comparative Evaluation of Digital Cephalometric Tracing Applications on Mobile Devices and Manual Tracing.
Hassan MM; Alfaifi WH; Qaysi AM; Alfaifi AA; AlGhafli ZM; Mattoo KA; Daghriri SM; Hawthan LM; Daghriri RM; Moafa AA; Al Moaleem MM
Med Sci Monit; 2024 Jun; 30():e944628. PubMed ID: 38909276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis.
Celik E; Polat-Ozsoy O; Toygar Memikoglu TU
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):241-6. PubMed ID: 19237509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. An evaluation of the errors in cephalometric measurements on scanned cephalometric images and conventional tracings.
Sayinsu K; Isik F; Trakyali G; Arun T
Eur J Orthod; 2007 Feb; 29(1):105-8. PubMed ID: 17290023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods.
Albarakati SF; Kula KS; Ghoneima AA
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2012 Jan; 41(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 22184624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
