181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37018830)
1. 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]
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. Reproducibility of measurements in tablet-assisted, PC-aided, and manual cephalometric analysis.
Goracci C; Ferrari M
Angle Orthod; 2014 May; 84(3):437-42. PubMed ID: 24160993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Preciseness of artificial intelligence for lateral cephalometric measurements.
El-Dawlatly M; Attia KH; Abdelghaffar AY; Mostafa YA; Abd El-Ghafour M
J Orofac Orthop; 2024 May; 85(Suppl 1):27-33. PubMed ID: 36894679
[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. Validity and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements obtained from digital photographs of analogue headfilms.
Grybauskas S; Balciuniene I; Vetra J
Stomatologija; 2007; 9(4):114-20. PubMed ID: 18303276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Evaluation of Soft Tissue Landmark Reliability between Manual and Computerized Plotting Methods.
Kasinathan G; Kommi PB; Kumar SM; Yashwant A; Arani N; Sabapathy S
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2017 Apr; 18(4):317-321. PubMed ID: 28349911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Artificial intelligence-based cephalometric landmark annotation and measurements according to Arnett's analysis: can we trust a bot to do that?
Silva TP; Hughes MM; Menezes LDS; de Melo MFB; Freitas PHL; Takeshita WM
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2022 Sep; 51(6):20200548. PubMed ID: 33882247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The reliability of cephalometric measurements in oral and maxillofacial imaging: Cone beam computed tomography versus two-dimensional digital cephalograms.
Hariharan A; Diwakar NR; Jayanthi K; Hema HM; Deepukrishna S; Ghaste SR
Indian J Dent Res; 2016; 27(4):370-377. PubMed ID: 27723632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Comparative study of two software for the detection of cephalometric landmarks by artificial intelligence].
Moreno M; Gebeile-Chauty S
Orthod Fr; 2022 Mar; 93(1):41-61. PubMed ID: 35785943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Measurements from conventional, digital and CT-derived cephalograms: a comparative study.
Ghoneima A; Albarakati S; Baysal A; Uysal T; Kula K
Aust Orthod J; 2012 Nov; 28(2):232-9. PubMed ID: 23304973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
