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.
122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37428281)
1. Virtual Three-Dimensional Model Analysis in the Assessment of the Maxillary and Mandibular Donor Sites on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Images. Diarjani SM; Motevasseli S; Dalili Kajan Z J Digit Imaging; 2023 Oct; 36(5):2249-2258. PubMed ID: 37428281 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Quantity and Quality of Intraoral Autogenous Block Graft Donor Sites with Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Ataman-Duruel ET; Duruel O; Nares S; Stanford C; Tözüm TF Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2020; 35(4):782-788. PubMed ID: 32724932 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Measurement of Crestal Cortical Bone Thickness at Implant Site: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study. Gupta A; Rathee S; Agarwal J; Pachar RB J Contemp Dent Pract; 2017 Sep; 18(9):785-789. PubMed ID: 28874642 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Volumetric analysis of chin and mandibular retromolar region as donor sites for cortico-cancellous bone blocks. Zeltner M; Flückiger LB; Hämmerle CH; Hüsler J; Benic GI Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Aug; 27(8):999-1004. PubMed ID: 26748953 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Computer-aided design evaluation of harvestable mandibular bone volume: a clinical and tomographic human study. Verdugo F; Simonian K; Raffaelli L; D'Addona A Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2014 Jun; 16(3):348-55. PubMed ID: 23157651 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Simulation of sinus floor augmentation with symphysis bone graft using three-dimensional computerized tomography. Buyukkurt MC; Tozoglu S; Yavuz MS; Aras MH Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 Aug; 39(8):788-92. PubMed ID: 20462739 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Three-dimensional evaluation of the different donor sites of the mandible for autologous bone grafts. Möhlhenrich SC; Heussen N; Ayoub N; Hölzle F; Modabber A Clin Oral Investig; 2015 Mar; 19(2):453-8. PubMed ID: 24668345 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Bone quality and quantity of the mandibular symphyseal region in autogenous bone grafting using cone-beam computed tomography: a cross-sectional study. Safi Y; Amid R; Kadkhodazadeh M; Mortazavi H; Sharifi MP; Gandomi S Head Face Med; 2021 Jul; 17(1):26. PubMed ID: 34253223 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Volumetric Evaluation of Safe Zone for Bone Harvesting From Symphysis Region by Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. Altug HA; Coskun AT; Kamburoglu K; Zerener T; Gulen O; Sencimen M; Ozkan A Implant Dent; 2016 Dec; 25(6):758-761. PubMed ID: 27356201 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Interradicular distance and alveolar bone thickness for miniscrew insertion: a CBCT study of Persian adults with different sagittal skeletal patterns. Golshah A; Salahshour M; Nikkerdar N BMC Oral Health; 2021 Oct; 21(1):534. PubMed ID: 34657622 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An Analysis of Mandibular Symphyseal Graft Sufficiency for Alveolar Cleft Bone Grafting. Kilinc A; Saruhan N; Ertas U; Korkmaz IH; Kaymaz I J Craniofac Surg; 2017 Jan; 28(1):147-150. PubMed ID: 27941546 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of volumetry and density of mandibular symphysis bone grafts by three-dimensional computed tomography. Yavuz MS; Buyukkurt MC; Tozoglu S; Dagsuyu IM; Kantarci M Dent Traumatol; 2009 Oct; 25(5):475-9. PubMed ID: 19754697 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Quantitation of Mandibular Symphysis Bone as Source of Bone Grafting: Description in Class I and Class III Skeletal Conditions. Velásquez H; Olate S; Díaz C; Navarro P; Borie E; de Moraes M J Oral Implantol; 2017 Jun; 43(3):211-217. PubMed ID: 28650795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Three-dimensional radiographic assessment of the mandibular interforaminal donor site in different vertical facial growth types. Husseini B; Khoury G; Riachi F; Ghosn N; Khoury N; Jerbaka F; Bouserhal J; Younes R J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Feb; 123(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 33609788 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Zygomaticomaxillary modifications in the horizontal plane induced by micro-implant-supported skeletal expander, analyzed with CBCT images. Cantarella D; Dominguez-Mompell R; Moschik C; Sfogliano L; Elkenawy I; Pan HC; Mallya SM; Moon W Prog Orthod; 2018 Oct; 19(1):41. PubMed ID: 30345476 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reliability and accuracy of cone beam computed tomography versus conventional multidetector computed tomography for image-guided craniofacial implant planning: An in vitro study. Dings JP; Verhamme L; Merkx MA; Xi T; Meijer GJ; Maal TJ Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(3):665–672. PubMed ID: 30934042 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Three-dimensional evaluation of labial alveolar bone overlying the maxillary and mandibular incisors in different skeletal classifications of malocclusion. Raber A; Kula K; Ghoneima A Int Orthod; 2019 Jun; 17(2):287-295. PubMed ID: 31015017 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cortical bone thickness at common miniscrew implant placement sites. Farnsworth D; Rossouw PE; Ceen RF; Buschang PH Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Apr; 139(4):495-503. PubMed ID: 21457860 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of transverse analysis between posteroanterior cephalogram and cone-beam computed tomography. Lee KM; Hwang HS; Cho JH Angle Orthod; 2014 Jul; 84(4):715-9. PubMed ID: 24325622 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A morphometric analysis of the mandibular canal by cone beam computed tomography and its relevance to the sagittal split ramus osteotomy. Chrcanovic BR; de Carvalho Machado V; Gjelvold B Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2016 Jun; 20(2):183-90. PubMed ID: 26875084 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]