103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9161182)
1. Identification of the temporomandibular joint and adjacent cephalometric landmarks using a dual sensitivity screen-cassette system.
Hickman EW; Scarfe WC; Farman AG; Silviera A; Goldsmith J
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Nov; 25(5):274-82. PubMed ID: 9161182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A dual sensitivity screen system for TMJ image enhancement in cephalometric radiography: sensitometric evaluation.
Wakoh M; Farman AG; Nishikawa K; Kuroyanagi K; Scarfe WC; Braun S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Aug; 24(3):191-4. PubMed ID: 8617394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Achieving improved visualization of the temporomandibular joint condyle and fossa in the sagittal cephalogram and a pilot study of their relationships in habitual occlusion.
Braun S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1996 Jun; 109(6):635-8. PubMed ID: 8659473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Possibilities of dose reduction in lateral cephalometric radiographs and its effects on clinical diagnostics.
Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Reinert S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Jan; 36(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 17329587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of rare earth intensifying screens in cephalometric radiography.
Stathopoulos V; Poulton DR
Angle Orthod; 1990; 60(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 2180348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reliability of landmark identification on monitor-displayed lateral cephalometric images.
Yu SH; Nahm DS; Baek SH
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Jun; 133(6):790.e1-6; discussion e1. PubMed ID: 18538235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The accuracy of cephalometric tracing superimposition.
Gliddon MJ; Xia JJ; Gateno J; Wong HT; Lasky RE; Teichgraeber JF; Jia X; Liebschner MA; Lemoine JJ
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Feb; 64(2):194-202. PubMed ID: 16413890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Landmark identification error in submentovertex cephalometrics. A computerized method for determining the condylar long axis.
Williamson PC; Major PW; Nebbe B; Glover KE
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Sep; 86(3):360-9. PubMed ID: 9768429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry.
Chen YJ; Chen SK; Chang HF; Chen KC
Angle Orthod; 2000 Oct; 70(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 11036999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparison of two-dimensional radiography and three-dimensional computed tomography in angular cephalometric measurements.
Nalçaci R; Oztürk F; Sökücü O
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 Feb; 39(2):100-6. PubMed ID: 20100922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An evaluation of digital subtraction radiography for assessment of changes in position of the mandibular condyle.
Ekberg EC; Petersson A; Nilner M
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 Jul; 27(4):230-5. PubMed ID: 9780901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Digital imaging of cephalometric radiographs, Part 2: Image quality.
Forsyth DB; Shaw WC; Richmond S; Roberts CT
Angle Orthod; 1996; 66(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 8678345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The evaluation of high-speed screen/film combinations in cephalometric radiography.
Kimura K; Langland OE; Biggerstaff RH
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1987 Dec; 92(6):484-91. PubMed ID: 3479894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reliability of landmark identification for analysis of the temporomandibular joint in real-time MRI.
Mouchoux J; Meyer-Marcotty P; Sojka F; Dechent P; Klenke D; Wiechens B; Quast A
Head Face Med; 2024 Feb; 20(1):10. PubMed ID: 38365709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quantitative and subjective analysis of temporomandibular joint radiographs.
Smith SR; Matteson SR; Phillips C; Tyndall DA
J Prosthet Dent; 1989 Oct; 62(4):456-63. PubMed ID: 2585313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Landmark identification on direct digital versus film-based cephalometric radiographs: a human skull study.
Schulze RK; Gloede MB; Doll GM
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2002 Dec; 122(6):635-42. PubMed ID: 12490875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Evaluation of XD/A Plus and ST8G films for cephalometric radiography with Grenex G8 and BH-III screens.
Wakoh M; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Shibuya H; Nishikawa K; Kuroyanagi K
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1997 Feb; 83(2):293-9. PubMed ID: 9117764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry.
Chen YJ; Chen SK; Yao JC; Chang HF
Angle Orthod; 2004 Apr; 74(2):155-61. PubMed ID: 15132440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparative analysis of angular cephalometric values between CBCT generated lateral cephalograms versus digitized conventional lateral cephalograms.
Chung RR; Lagravere MO; Flores-Mir C; Heo G; Carey JP; Major PW
Int Orthod; 2009 Dec; 7(4):308-21. PubMed ID: 20303918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
