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.
128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36528481)
21. Integration of digital maxillary dental casts with 3D facial images in orthodontic patients. Xiao Z; Liu Z; Gu Y Angle Orthod; 2020 May; 90(3):397-404. PubMed ID: 33378431 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Validation of three-dimensional facial imaging captured with smartphone-based photogrammetry application in comparison to stereophotogrammetry system. Andrews J; Alwafi A; Bichu YM; Pliska BT; Mostafa N; Zou B Heliyon; 2023 May; 9(5):e15834. PubMed ID: 37180897 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and 3D-printed casts compared with conventional stone casts. Ellakany P; Al-Harbi F; El Tantawi M; Mohsen C J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Mar; 127(3):438-444. PubMed ID: 33308856 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Development and virtual validation of a novel digital workflow to rehabilitate palatal defects by using smartphone-integrated stereophotogrammetry (SPINS). Farook TH; Jamayet NB; Asif JA; Din AS; Mahyuddin MN; Alam MK Sci Rep; 2021 Apr; 11(1):8469. PubMed ID: 33875672 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Accuracy of a patient 3-dimensional virtual representation obtained from the superimposition of facial and intraoral scans guided by extraoral and intraoral scan body systems. Revilla-León M; Zandinejad A; Nair MK; Barmak AB; Feilzer AJ; Özcan M J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):984-993. PubMed ID: 33838919 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Prosthesis accuracy of fit on 3D-printed casts versus stone casts: A comparative study in the anterior maxilla. Abdeen L; Chen YW; Kostagianni A; Finkelman M; Papathanasiou A; Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P J Esthet Restor Dent; 2022 Dec; 34(8):1238-1246. PubMed ID: 36415927 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Photogrammetry and conventional impressions for recording implant positions: a comparative laboratory study. Ortorp A; Jemt T; Bäck T Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2005; 7(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15903174 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Does powdering of the dentition increase the accuracy of fusing 3D stereophotographs and digital dental casts. Rangel FA; Chiu YT; Maal TJ; Bronkhorst EM; Bergé SJ; Kuijpers-Jagtman AM Eur J Orthod; 2016 Aug; 38(4):440-5. PubMed ID: 26781687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Frugal 3D scanning using smartphones provides an accessible framework for capturing the external ear. Nightingale RC; Ross MT; Cruz RLJ; Allenby MC; Powell SK; Woodruff MA J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg; 2021 Nov; 74(11):3066-3072. PubMed ID: 34088646 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Accuracy of deep learning-based integrated tooth models by merging intraoral scans and CBCT scans for 3D evaluation of root position during orthodontic treatment. Lee SC; Hwang HS; Lee KC Prog Orthod; 2022 May; 23(1):15. PubMed ID: 35527317 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Virtual bite registration using intraoral digital scanning, CT and CBCT: In vitro evaluation of a new method and its implication for orthognathic surgery. Nilsson J; Richards RG; Thor A; Kamer L J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2016 Sep; 44(9):1194-200. PubMed ID: 27423538 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Validation of a technique for integration of a digital dental model into stereophotogrammetric images of the face using cone-beam computed tomographic data. Codari M; Pucciarelli V; Tommasi DG; Sforza C Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2016 Jun; 54(5):584-6. PubMed ID: 26852270 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Photogrammetry as an alternative for acquiring digital dental models: A proof of concept. Stuani VT; Ferreira R; Manfredi GGP; Cardoso MV; Sant'Ana ACP Med Hypotheses; 2019 Jul; 128():43-49. PubMed ID: 31203907 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: A comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing. Wesemann C; Muallah J; Mah J; Bumann A Quintessence Int; 2017; 48(1):41-50. PubMed ID: 27834416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Accuracy of RGB-D camera-based and stereophotogrammetric facial scanners: a comparative study. Pan F; Liu J; Cen Y; Chen Y; Cai R; Zhao Z; Liao W; Wang J J Dent; 2022 Dec; 127():104302. PubMed ID: 36152954 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Neuroanatomical photogrammetric models using smartphones: a comparison of apps. Piazza A; Corvino S; Ballesteros D; Campeggi A; Agosti E; Serioli S; Corrivetti F; Bortolotti C; De Notaris M Acta Neurochir (Wien); 2024 Sep; 166(1):378. PubMed ID: 39316122 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Intraoral Scanning and Setting Up the Digital Final Occlusion in Three-Dimensional Planning of Orthognathic Surgery: Its Comparison with the Dental Model Approach. Ho CT; Lin HH; Lo LJ Plast Reconstr Surg; 2019 May; 143(5):1027e-1036e. PubMed ID: 31033828 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Accuracy and reproducibility of permanent dentitions and dental arch measurements: comparing three different digital models with a plaster study cast. Al-Mashraqi AA; Alhammadi MS; Gadi AA; Altharawi RA; Zamim KAH; Halboub E Int J Comput Dent; 2021 Dec; 24(4):353-362. PubMed ID: 34931771 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]