135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36549828)
1. Comparison of two 3-dimensional user-friendly voxel-based maxillary and 2-dimensional superimposition methods.
Sheeran S; Hartsfield J; Omami G; Bazina M
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2023 Jan; 163(1):117-125. PubMed ID: 36549828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of two-dimensional lateral cephalogram and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography superimpositions: a comparative study.
Heinz J; Stewart K; Ghoneima A
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2019 Apr; 48(4):519-525. PubMed ID: 30342757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Natural reference structures for three-dimensional maxillary regional superimposition in growing patients.
Fan Y; Han B; Zhang Y; Guo Y; Li W; Chen H; Meng C; Penington A; Schneider P; Pei Y; Chen G; Xu T
BMC Oral Health; 2023 Sep; 23(1):655. PubMed ID: 37684645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Precision and reliability of Dolphin 3-dimensional voxel-based superimposition.
Bazina M; Cevidanes L; Ruellas A; Valiathan M; Quereshy F; Syed A; Wu R; Palomo JM
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Apr; 153(4):599-606. PubMed ID: 29602352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparative study of cephalometric measurements using 3 imaging modalities.
Wen J; Liu S; Ye X; Xie X; Li J; Li H; Mei L
J Am Dent Assoc; 2017 Dec; 148(12):913-921. PubMed ID: 29042006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Voxel-based superimposition of Cone Beam CT scans for orthodontic and craniofacial follow-up: Overview and clinical implementation.
Dot G; Rafflenbeul F; Salmon B
Int Orthod; 2020 Dec; 18(4):739-748. PubMed ID: 33011138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Accuracy and reliability of maxillary digital model (MDM) superimposition in evaluating teeth movement in adults compared with CBCT maxillary superimposition.
Pan Y; Wang X; Dai F; Chen G; Xu T
Sci Rep; 2020 Nov; 10(1):19384. PubMed ID: 33168909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Three-dimensional maxillary and mandibular regional superimposition using cone beam computed tomography: a validation study.
Koerich L; Burns D; Weissheimer A; Claus JD
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2016 May; 45(5):662-9. PubMed ID: 26794399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Analysis of tooth movement in extraction cases using three-dimensional reverse engineering technology.
Cha BK; Lee JY; Jost-Brinkmann PG; Yoshida N
Eur J Orthod; 2007 Aug; 29(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 17513876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Accuracy and reliability of landmark-based, surface-based and voxel-based 3D cone-beam computed tomography superimposition methods.
Ghoneima A; Cho H; Farouk K; Kula K
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2017 Nov; 20(4):227-236. PubMed ID: 28960842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Two-dimensional vs 3-dimensional comparison of alveolar bone over maxillary incisors with A-point as a reference.
Kula TJ; Ghoneima A; Eckert G; Parks ET; Utreja A; Kula K
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2017 Dec; 152(6):836-847.e2. PubMed ID: 29173863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Orthodontic treatment planning for impacted maxillary canines using conventional records versus 3D CBCT.
Alqerban A; Willems G; Bernaerts C; Vangastel J; Politis C; Jacobs R
Eur J Orthod; 2014 Dec; 36(6):698-707. PubMed ID: 24406479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Measurement error and reliability of three available 3D superimposition methods in growing patients.
Ponce-Garcia C; Ruellas ACO; Cevidanes LHS; Flores-Mir C; Carey JP; Lagravere-Vich M
Head Face Med; 2020 Jan; 16(1):1. PubMed ID: 31987041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Exploring a new method for superimposition of pre-treatment and post-treatment mandibular digital dental casts in adults].
Dai FF; Liu Y; Xu TM; Chen G
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2018 Apr; 50(2):271-278. PubMed ID: 29643526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison between 2D cephalometric and 3D digital model superimpositions in patients with lateral incisor agenesis treated by canine substitution.
Hage L; Kmeid R; Amm E
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2024 Jan; 165(1):93-102. PubMed ID: 37737803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Newly defined landmarks for a three-dimensionally based cephalometric analysis: a retrospective cone-beam computed tomography scan review.
Lee M; Kanavakis G; Miner RM
Angle Orthod; 2015 Jan; 85(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 24866835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program.
Periago DR; Scarfe WC; Moshiri M; Scheetz JP; Silveira AM; Farman AG
Angle Orthod; 2008 May; 78(3):387-95. PubMed ID: 18416632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
