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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

171 related items for PubMed ID: 20108870

  • 21. Accuracy of computerized automatic identification of cephalometric landmarks.
    Liu JK, Chen YT, Cheng KS.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2000 Nov; 118(5):535-40. PubMed ID: 11094367
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Comparison of landmark identification and linear and angular measurements in conventional and digital cephalometry.
    Akhare PJ, Dagab AM, Alle RS, Shenoyd U, Garla V.
    Int J Comput Dent; 2013 Nov; 16(3):241-54. PubMed ID: 24364195
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. 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 01; 23(1):191. PubMed ID: 37005593
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. Automatic computerized radiographic identification of cephalometric landmarks.
    Rudolph DJ, Sinclair PM, Coggins JM.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1998 Feb 01; 113(2):173-9. PubMed ID: 9484208
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Accuracy of 3D cephalometric measurements based on an automatic knowledge-based landmark detection algorithm.
    Gupta A, Kharbanda OP, Sardana V, Balachandran R, Sardana HK.
    Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2016 Jul 01; 11(7):1297-309. PubMed ID: 26704370
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. Human examination and artificial intelligence in cephalometric landmark detection-is AI ready to take over?
    Indermun S, Shaik S, Nyirenda C, Johannes K, Mulder R.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2023 Sep 01; 52(6):20220362. PubMed ID: 37427581
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. The application and accuracy of feature matching on automated cephalometric superimposition.
    Jiang Y, Song G, Yu X, Dou Y, Li Q, Liu S, Han B, Xu T.
    BMC Med Imaging; 2020 Mar 19; 20(1):31. PubMed ID: 32192440
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. Assessment of the reliability and repeatability of landmarks using 3-D cephalometric software.
    Frongia G, Piancino MG, Bracco AA, Crincoli V, Debernardi CL, Bracco P.
    Cranio; 2012 Oct 19; 30(4):255-63. PubMed ID: 23156966
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Assessment of 3-dimensional computer-generated cephalometric measurements.
    Kusnoto B, Evans CA, BeGole EA, de Rijk W.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 Oct 19; 116(4):390-9. PubMed ID: 10511666
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms.
    Cattaneo PM, Bloch CB, Calmar D, Hjortshøj M, Melsen B.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Dec 19; 134(6):798-802. PubMed ID: 19061807
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. Measurements from conventional, digital and CT-derived cephalograms: a comparative study.
    Ghoneima A, Albarakati S, Baysal A, Uysal T, Kula K.
    Aust Orthod J; 2012 Nov 19; 28(2):232-9. PubMed ID: 23304973
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Comparison of hand-traced and computer-based cephalometric superimpositions.
    Huja SS, Grubaugh EL, Rummel AM, Fields HW, Beck FM.
    Angle Orthod; 2009 May 19; 79(3):428-35. PubMed ID: 19413396
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. Automatic landmarking of cephalograms using active appearance models.
    Vucinić P, Trpovski Z, Sćepan I.
    Eur J Orthod; 2010 Jun 19; 32(3):233-41. PubMed ID: 20203126
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Linear accuracy and reliability of cone beam CT derived 3-dimensional images constructed using an orthodontic volumetric rendering program.
    Periago DR, Scarfe WC, Moshiri M, Scheetz JP, Silveira AM, Farman AG.
    Angle Orthod; 2008 May 19; 78(3):387-95. PubMed ID: 18416632
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. Reproducibility of maxillofacial anatomic landmarks on 3-dimensional computed tomographic images determined with the 95% confidence ellipse method.
    Muramatsu A, Nawa H, Kimura M, Yoshida K, Maeda M, Katsumata A, Ariji E, Goto S.
    Angle Orthod; 2008 May 19; 78(3):396-402. PubMed ID: 18416622
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. "Ten-point" 3D cephalometric analysis using low-dosage cone beam computed tomography.
    Farronato G, Garagiola U, Dominici A, Periti G, de Nardi S, Carletti V, Farronato D.
    Prog Orthod; 2010 May 19; 11(1):2-12. PubMed ID: 20529623
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Reliability and the smallest detectable differences of lateral cephalometric measurements.
    Damstra J, Huddleston Slater JJ, Fourie Z, Ren Y.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Nov 19; 138(5):546.e1-8; discussion 546-7. PubMed ID: 21055590
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Precision of cephalometric analysis via fully and semiautomatic evaluation of digital lateral cephalographs.
    Sommer T, Ciesielski R, Erbersdobler J, Orthuber W, Fischer-Brandies H.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Sep 19; 38(6):401-6. PubMed ID: 19700534
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 9.