158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9693525)
1. Analysis of low-dose digital lateral cephalometric radiographs.
Näslund EB; Kruger M; Petersson A; Hansen K
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 May; 27(3):136-9. PubMed ID: 9693525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Exposure reduction in cephalography with a digital photostimulable phosphor imaging system.
Seki K; Okano T
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1993 Aug; 22(3):127-30. PubMed ID: 8299830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prospective study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional and digital lateral headfilms.
Hagemann K; Vollmer D; Niegel T; Ehmer U; Reuter I
J Orofac Orthop; 2000; 61(2):91-9. PubMed ID: 10783561
[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. Diagnostic yield of conventional and digital cephalometric images: a human cadaver study.
Gijbels F; Bou Serhal C; Willems G; Bosmans H; Sanderink G; Persoons M; Jacobs R
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Mar; 30(2):101-5. PubMed ID: 11313730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effects of image enhancement on reliability of landmark identification in digital cephalometry.
Oshagh M; Shahidi SH; Danaei SH
Indian J Dent Res; 2013; 24(1):98-103. PubMed ID: 23852241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Reliability of landmark identification in cephalometric radiography acquired by a storage phosphor imaging system.
Chen YJ; Chen SK; Huang HW; Yao CC; Chang HF
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Sep; 33(5):301-6. PubMed ID: 15585806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique.
Geelen W; Wenzel A; Gotfredsen E; Kruger M; Hansson LG
Eur J Orthod; 1998 Jun; 20(3):331-40. PubMed ID: 9699411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Are orthodontic landmarks and variables in digital cephalometric radiography taken in fixed and natural head positions reliable?
Giannopoulou MA; Kondylidou-Sidira AC; Papadopoulos MA; Athanasiou AE
Int Orthod; 2020 Mar; 18(1):54-68. PubMed ID: 31495758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of measurements from photographed lateral cephalograms and scanned cephalograms.
Collins J; Shah A; McCarthy C; Sandler J
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2007 Dec; 132(6):830-3. PubMed ID: 18068604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Are collimated low-dose digital radiographs valid for performing Delaire's architectural analysis?
Stamm T; Meier N; Hohoff A; Meyer U; Heinecke A; Joos U
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2003 Dec; 32(6):600-5. PubMed ID: 14636609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Landmark identification errors on cone-beam computed tomography-derived cephalograms and conventional digital cephalograms.
Chang ZC; Hu FC; Lai E; Yao CC; Chen MH; Chen YJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Dec; 140(6):e289-97. PubMed ID: 22133963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. New cephalometric images with a workstation. A preliminary report.
Nakagawa K; Matsumoto N; Takatsuka S; Ueki K; Yamamoto E; Horii J; Matsui T
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Mar; 85(3):329-33. PubMed ID: 9540093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Effect of image compression of digital lateral cephalograms on the reproducibility of cephalometric points.
Duarte H; Vieck R; Siqueira DF; Angelieri F; Bommarito S; Dalben G; Sannomiya EK
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Sep; 38(6):393-400. PubMed ID: 19700533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Accuracy of cephalometric landmarks on monitor-displayed radiographs with and without image emboss enhancement.
Leonardi RM; Giordano D; Maiorana F; Greco M
Eur J Orthod; 2010 Jun; 32(3):242-7. PubMed ID: 20022892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Comparative study of two digital radiographic storage phosphor systems.
Oliveira AE; de Almeida SM; Paganini GA; Haiter Neto F; Bóscolo FN
Braz Dent J; 2000; 11(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 11210259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
