188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36431331)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. 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]
5. Accuracy and clinical validity of automated cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural networks.
Kang S; Kim I; Kim YJ; Kim N; Baek SH; Sung SJ
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2024 Feb; 27(1):64-77. PubMed ID: 37326233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Comparison of AudaxCeph®'s fully automated cephalometric tracing technology to a semi-automated approach by human examiners.
Ristau B; Coreil M; Chapple A; Armbruster P; Ballard R
Int Orthod; 2022 Dec; 20(4):100691. PubMed ID: 36114136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique.
Santoro M; Jarjoura K; Cangialosi TJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Mar; 129(3):345-51. PubMed ID: 16527629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Cephalometric measurements performed on CBCT and reconstructed lateral cephalograms: a cross-sectional study providing a quantitative approach of differences and bias.
Baldini B; Cavagnetto D; Baselli G; Sforza C; Tartaglia GM
BMC Oral Health; 2022 Mar; 22(1):98. PubMed ID: 35351080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. [Orthodonticorthognathic treatment stability in skeletal class III malocclusion patients].
Wang XJ; Zhang YM; Zhou YH
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2019 Feb; 51(1):86-92. PubMed ID: 30773550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. [Therapeutic evaluation of the correction of the severe bi-maxillary protrusion cases by Tweed-Merrifield technique].
Huang JQ; Liu SY; Jiang JH
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2016 Jun; 48(3):555-61. PubMed ID: 27318924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Adding Depth to Cephalometric Analysis: Comparing Two- and Three-Dimensional Angular Cephalometric Measurements.
Jodeh DS; Kuykendall LV; Ford JM; Ruso S; Decker SJ; Rottgers SA
J Craniofac Surg; 2019 Jul; 30(5):1568-1571. PubMed ID: 31299770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Cephalometric analysis performance discrepancy between orthodontists and an artificial intelligence model using lateral cephalometric radiographs.
Guinot-Barona C; Alonso Pérez-Barquero J; Galán López L; Barmak AB; Att W; Kois JC; Revilla-León M
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Apr; 36(4):555-565. PubMed ID: 37882509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluating the accuracy of automated cephalometric analysis based on artificial intelligence.
Bao H; Zhang K; Yu C; Li H; Cao D; Shu H; Liu L; Yan B
BMC Oral Health; 2023 Apr; 23(1):191. PubMed ID: 37005593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
