167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38314342)
1. 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]
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. Web-based Fully Automated Cephalometric Analysis: Comparisons between App-aided, Computerized, and Manual Tracings.
Meriç P; Naoumova J
Turk J Orthod; 2020 Sep; 33(3):142-149. PubMed ID: 32974059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Can artificial intelligence-driven cephalometric analysis replace manual tracing? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Hendrickx J; Gracea RS; Vanheers M; Winderickx N; Preda F; Shujaat S; Jacobs R
Eur J Orthod; 2024 Aug; 46(4):. PubMed ID: 38895901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Manual tracing versus smartphone application (app) tracing: a comparative study.
Sayar G; Kilinc DD
Acta Odontol Scand; 2017 Nov; 75(8):588-594. PubMed ID: 28793813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Automated Cephalometric Landmark Identification: A Meta-Analysis Previewed by a Systematic Review.
Rauniyar S; Jena S; Sahoo N; Mohanty P; Dash BP
Cureus; 2023 Jun; 15(6):e40934. PubMed ID: 37496553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparative Evaluation of Digital Cephalometric Tracing Applications on Mobile Devices and Manual Tracing.
Hassan MM; Alfaifi WH; Qaysi AM; Alfaifi AA; AlGhafli ZM; Mattoo KA; Daghriri SM; Hawthan LM; Daghriri RM; Moafa AA; Al Moaleem MM
Med Sci Monit; 2024 Jun; 30():e944628. PubMed ID: 38909276
[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. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Automatic cephalometric landmark identification with artificial intelligence: An umbrella review of systematic reviews.
Polizzi A; Leonardi R
J Dent; 2024 Jul; 146():105056. PubMed ID: 38729291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. [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]
20. Accuracy and clinical validity of automated cephalometric analysis using convolutional neural networks.
Kang S; Kim I; Kim YJ; Kim N; Baek SH; Sung SJ
Orthod Craniofac Res; 2024 Feb; 27(1):64-77. PubMed ID: 37326233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
