2010
DOI: 10.1590/s2176-94512010000500007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: OBJETIVO: comparar a confiabilidade de identificação dos pontos visualizados sobre radiografias cefalométricas convencionais e sobre imagens geradas pela Tomografia Computadorizada Cone-Beam em 2D e 3D. MÉTODOS: o material constou de imagens obtidas através do tomógrafo computadorizado Cone-Beam, em norma lateral, em 2D e 3D, impressas em papel fotográfico; e radiografias cefalométricas laterais, realizadas na mesma clínica radiológica e no mesmo dia, de dois pacientes pertencentes aos arquivos do Curso de Esp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The accuracy and reliability of landmark detection and cephalometric measurements using 3D data gathered using the CBCT technique have been confirmed [1,4,9,11,12]. For example, it has been shown that 3D images are more accurate and reliable than traditional cephalographic projections for both landmark detection [4] and measurements [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The accuracy and reliability of landmark detection and cephalometric measurements using 3D data gathered using the CBCT technique have been confirmed [1,4,9,11,12]. For example, it has been shown that 3D images are more accurate and reliable than traditional cephalographic projections for both landmark detection [4] and measurements [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…For example, it has been shown that 3D images are more accurate and reliable than traditional cephalographic projections for both landmark detection [4] and measurements [11]. However, using 3D landmark identification is more time-consuming than using conventional 2D cephalographic tracings [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%