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.
3. Evaluation of accuracy and reliability of OneCeph digital cephalometric analysis in comparison with manual cephalometric analysis-a cross-sectional study. Mohan A; Sivakumar A; Nalabothu P BDJ Open; 2021 Jun; 7(1):22. PubMed ID: 34140466 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. A comparison of the reproducibility of manual tracing and on-screen digitization for cephalometric profile variables. Dvortsin DP; Sandham A; Pruim GJ; Dijkstra PU Eur J Orthod; 2008 Dec; 30(6):586-91. PubMed ID: 18719051 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Which cephalometric analysis for maxillo-mandibular surgery in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome? Brevi B; Di Blasio A; Di Blasio C; Piazza F; D'Ascanio L; Sesenna E Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital; 2015 Oct; 35(5):332-7. PubMed ID: 26824915 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Accuracy of digital and analogue cephalometric measurements assessed with the sandwich technique. Santoro M; Jarjoura K; Cangialosi TJ Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2006 Mar; 129(3):345-51. PubMed ID: 16527629 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]