180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37018830)
21. 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]
22. Is automatic cephalometric software using artificial intelligence better than orthodontist experts in landmark identification?
Ye H; Cheng Z; Ungvijanpunya N; Chen W; Cao L; Gou Y
BMC Oral Health; 2023 Jul; 23(1):467. PubMed ID: 37422630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Digital and manual cephalometric analysis.
Thurzo A; Javorka V; Stanko P; Lysy J; Suchancova B; Lehotska V; Valkovic L; Makovnik M
Bratisl Lek Listy; 2010; 111(2):97-100. PubMed ID: 20429323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Human examination and artificial intelligence in cephalometric landmark detection-is AI ready to take over?
Indermun S; Shaik S; Nyirenda C; Johannes K; Mulder R
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2023 Sep; 52(6):20220362. PubMed ID: 37427581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Cephalometric Landmarks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
de Queiroz Tavares Borges Mesquita G; Vieira WA; Vidigal MTC; Travençolo BAN; Beaini TL; Spin-Neto R; Paranhos LR; de Brito Júnior RB
J Digit Imaging; 2023 Jun; 36(3):1158-1179. PubMed ID: 36604364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Assessment of landmark detection in cephalometric radiographs with different conditions of brightness and contrast using the an artificial intelligence software.
Menezes LDS; Silva TP; Lima Dos Santos MA; Hughes MM; Mariano Souza SDR; Leite Ribeiro PM; Freitas PHL; Takeshita WM
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2023 Nov; 52(8):20230065. PubMed ID: 37869886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis.
Celik E; Polat-Ozsoy O; Toygar Memikoglu TU
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Jun; 31(3):241-6. PubMed ID: 19237509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Accuracy of linear measurements from imaging plate and lateral cephalometric images derived from cone-beam computed tomography.
Moshiri M; Scarfe WC; Hilgers ML; Scheetz JP; Silveira AM; Farman AG
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Oct; 132(4):550-60. PubMed ID: 17920510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. A comparison of hand-tracing and cephalometric analysis computer programs with and without advanced features--accuracy and time demands.
Tsorovas G; Karsten AL
Eur J Orthod; 2010 Dec; 32(6):721-8. PubMed ID: 20554891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Comparison of landmark identification and linear and angular measurements in conventional and digital cephalometry.
Akhare PJ; Dagab AM; Alle RS; Shenoyd U; Garla V
Int J Comput Dent; 2013; 16(3):241-54. PubMed ID: 24364195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods.
Albarakati SF; Kula KS; Ghoneima AA
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2012 Jan; 41(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 22184624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Assessment of 3-dimensional computer-generated cephalometric measurements.
Kusnoto B; Evans CA; BeGole EA; de Rijk W
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Oct; 116(4):390-9. PubMed ID: 10511666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Automatic 3-Dimensional Cephalometric Landmarking via Deep Learning.
Dot G; Schouman T; Chang S; Rafflenbeul F; Kerbrat A; Rouch P; Gajny L
J Dent Res; 2022 Oct; 101(11):1380-1387. PubMed ID: 35982646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Comparison between a human judge and automatic landmark identification on digital models.
Dolatabadi N; Boyd RL; Oh H
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2022 Aug; 162(2):257-263. PubMed ID: 35933158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Precision of cephalometric analysis via fully and semiautomatic evaluation of digital lateral cephalographs.
Sommer T; Ciesielski R; Erbersdobler J; Orthuber W; Fischer-Brandies H
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Sep; 38(6):401-6. PubMed ID: 19700534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The reliability and reproducibility of an Android cephalometric smartphone application in comparison with the conventional method.
Zamrik OM; İşeri H
Angle Orthod; 2021 Mar; 91(2):236-242. PubMed ID: 33367490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
