Literature DB >> 16102396

Comparing digital and conventional cephalometric radiographs.

Jason M Cohen1.   

Abstract

With the introduction of digital cephalometry in orthodontics, many clinicians have cephalometric radiographs for a patient taken on 2 different cephalostats. Comparing these images is difficult because of differences in magnification between the 2 units. This article describes how to determine the magnification of a cephalometric radiograph and how to change the dimensions of a digital image to match a conventional image.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2005        PMID： 16102396     DOI： 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.03.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN： 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  7 in total

1.  Human age estimation combining third molar and skeletal development.

Authors:  P W Thevissen; J Kaur; G Willems
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2011-11-10       Impact factor: 2.686

2.  The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods.

Authors:  S F Albarakati; K S Kula; A A Ghoneima
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 2.419

3.  Evaluation of the accuracy of linear measurements on spiral computed tomography-derived three-dimensional images and its comparison with digital cephalometric radiography.

Authors:  S Varghese; V Kailasam; S Padmanabhan; B Vikraman; A Chithranjan
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.419

4.  Phenotypic diversity in white adults with moderate to severe Class II malocclusion.

Authors:  Lina M Moreno Uribe; Sara C Howe; Colleen Kummet; Kaci C Vela; Deborah V Dawson; Thomas E Southard
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  Candidate Gene Analyses of Skeletal Variation in Malocclusion.

Authors:  C S G da Fontoura; S F Miller; G L Wehby; B A Amendt; N E Holton; T E Southard; V Allareddy; L M Moreno Uribe
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 6.116

6.  Phenotypic diversity in white adults with moderate to severe Class III malocclusion.

Authors:  Lina M Moreno Uribe; Kaci C Vela; Colleen Kummet; Deborah V Dawson; Thomas E Southard
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  Characteristics of Down syndrome subjects in a Saudi sample.

Authors:  Mohammed A Korayem; Eman A AlKofide
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 2.079
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.