These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
42. 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]
43. [Cephalometric study of tongue crib combined with chincup treatment for anterior crossbite]. Cao YM; Zhang YY; Yu M; Tian YL Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2016 Apr; 25(2):221-6. PubMed ID: 27329890 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Efficacy of a Newly Designed Cephalometric Analysis Software for McNamara Analysis in Comparison with Dolphin Software. Nouri M; Hamidiaval S; Akbarzadeh Baghban A; Basafa M; Fahim M J Dent (Tehran); 2015 Jan; 12(1):60-9. PubMed ID: 26005455 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. 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]
46. Quantifying changes in incisor inclination before and after orthodontic treatment in class I, II, and III malocclusions. Kau CH; Bakos K; Lamani E J World Fed Orthod; 2020 Dec; 9(4):170-174. PubMed ID: 32948483 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. A fully deep learning model for the automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks. Kim YH; Lee C; Ha EG; Choi YJ; Han SS Imaging Sci Dent; 2021 Sep; 51(3):299-306. PubMed ID: 34621657 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Fully Automatic System for Accurate Localisation and Analysis of Cephalometric Landmarks in Lateral Cephalograms. Lindner C; Wang CW; Huang CT; Li CH; Chang SW; Cootes TF Sci Rep; 2016 Sep; 6():33581. PubMed ID: 27645567 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. [A cephalometric study on Twin-block appliance for treatment of early skeletal Class II malocclusion]. Liu Y; Liu YH Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2005 Dec; 14(6):569-72. PubMed ID: 16400480 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Picture archiving and communications systems: a study of reliability of orthodontic cephalometric analysis. Tan SS; Ahmad S; Moles DR; Cunningham SJ Eur J Orthod; 2011 Oct; 33(5):537-43. PubMed ID: 21106665 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of Cephalometric Measurements Performed on Smartphone-Based Application and Computer-Based Imaging Software: A Comparative Study. Chugh VK; Bhatia NK; Shastri D; Shankar SP; Singh S; Sardana R Turk J Orthod; 2023 Jun; 36(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 37346006 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. 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]
53. 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]
55. Skeletal and Dentoalveolar Cephalometric Features of Anterior Open Bite among Yemeni Adults. Daer AA; Abuaffan AH Scientifica (Cairo); 2016; 2016():3147972. PubMed ID: 27190680 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Reliability and validity of MicroScribe-3DXL system in comparison with radiographic cephalometric system: Angular measurements. Barmou MM; Hussain SF; Abu Hassan MI Int Orthod; 2018 Jun; 16(2):314-327. PubMed ID: 29673688 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Reliability Assessment of Orthodontic Apps for Cephalometrics. Aksakallı S; Yılancı H; Görükmez E; Ramoğlu Sİ Turk J Orthod; 2016 Dec; 29(4):98-102. PubMed ID: 30112482 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Three-dimensional cephalometric norms of Turkish Cypriots using CBCTimages reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo. Vahdettin L; Aksoy S; Öz U; Orhan K Turk J Med Sci; 2016 Apr; 46(3):848-61. PubMed ID: 27513266 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Comparison of linear and angular measurements using two-dimensional conventional methods and three-dimensional cone beam CT images reconstructed from a volumetric rendering program in vivo. Oz U; Orhan K; Abe N Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2011 Dec; 40(8):492-500. PubMed ID: 22065798 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. The Reliability of Two- and Three-Dimensional Cephalometric Measurements: A CBCT Study. Li C; Teixeira H; Tanna N; Zheng Z; Chen SHY; Zou M; Chung CH Diagnostics (Basel); 2021 Dec; 11(12):. PubMed ID: 34943528 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]