Craniofacial 3D Imaging 2019
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-00722-5_3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

3D Imaging to Assess Growth and Treatment Effects

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As early as 2010, Nalçaci et al demonstrated that 3D cephalometric approaches are fairly reliable and comparable with traditional 2D cephalometry [ 1 ]. In addition, a growing body of evidence continues to demonstrate the application of CBCT in orthodontics as a front-line technology development topic [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. However, the radiation exposure of cranial CBCTs is still not acceptable in most orthodontic patients, even though the dosage is dramatically reduced compared to when CBCT technology was first applied to orthodontics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…As early as 2010, Nalçaci et al demonstrated that 3D cephalometric approaches are fairly reliable and comparable with traditional 2D cephalometry [ 1 ]. In addition, a growing body of evidence continues to demonstrate the application of CBCT in orthodontics as a front-line technology development topic [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. However, the radiation exposure of cranial CBCTs is still not acceptable in most orthodontic patients, even though the dosage is dramatically reduced compared to when CBCT technology was first applied to orthodontics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is no doubt that 2D image-projected 3D structure analysis not only limits the regions that can be evaluated (e.g., mandibular condyle [ 10 ], glenoid fossa [ 11 ], coronoid process, mandibular canal [ 12 ]), but also exposes the findings to inherent and unavoidable errors, such as those rooted in differences in magnification, head position, landmark identification, tracing, and reference lines and planes used for superimposition [ 13 ]. Thus, reliable 3D mandibular structure analysis technologies are in high demand, especially those that can provide valuable information previously inaccessible using 2D methods [ 2 , 3 ]. In particular, Kadiogly et al stated, “Questions that were answered previously in 2D study are being asked again, and new studies are reassessing older and possibly outdated concepts with the aid of CBCT” [ 3 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…CBCT devices emit on an average, 1.320 to 3.324micro-sievert (μSv) for the mandibular bone and 1.031 to 1.420 μSv for maxillary bones. [ 23 ] Speedy scan: With the CBCT equipment, all information is obtained in just one flip. The method enhances the patient satisfaction and also reduces the period of stay within the hospital.…”
Section: D Imaging Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CBCT devices emit on an average, 1.320 to 3.324micro-sievert (μSv) for the mandibular bone and 1.031 to 1.420 μSv for maxillary bones. [ 23 ]…”
Section: D Imaging Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%