References
- McIntyre GT, Mossey PA. The craniofacial morphology of the parents of children with orofacial clefting: a systematic review of cephalometric studies. J Orthod 2002; 29: 23–29.
- Kamoen A, Dermaut L, Verbeeck R. The clinical significance of error measurement in the interpretation of treatment results. Eur J Orthod 2001; 23: 569–78.
- Baumrind S, Frantz R. The reliability of head film measurements. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 1971; 60: 111–17.
- Baumrind S, Frantz R. The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measurements. Am J Orthod 1966; 60: 505–17.
- Gravely JF, Benzies PM. The clinical significance of tracing error in cephalometry. Br J Orthod 1974; 1: 95–101.
- Cohen AM. Uncertainty in cephalometrics. Br J Orthod 1984; 11: 44–48.
- Houston WJ, Maher RE, McElroy D, Sherriff M. Sources of error in measurements from cephalometric radiographs. Eur J Orthod 1986; 8: 149–51.
- Battagel JM. The aetiological factors in Class III malocclusion. Eur J Orthod 1993; 15: 347–70.
- Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF, Chen KC. Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2000; 70: 387–92.
- Chen YJ, Chen SK, Yao JC, Chang HF. The effects of differences in landmark identification on the cephalometric measurements in traditional versus digitized cephalometry. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 155–61.
- Chen YJ, Chen SK, Huang HW. Reliability of landmark identification in cephalometric radiography acquired by a storage phosphor imaging system. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2004; 33: 301–06.
- Turner PJ, Weerakone S. An evaluation of the reproducibility of landmark identification using scanned cephalometric images. J Orthod 2001; 28: 221–29.
- Leonardi R, Annunziata A, Caltabiano M. Landmark identification error in posteroanterior cephalometric radiography. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 761–65.
- Haney E, Gansky SA, Lee JS. Comparative analysis of traditional radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography volumetric images in the diagnosis and treatment planning of maxillary impacted canines. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 590–97.
- Silva MA, Wolf U, Heinicke F. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 640.e1–e5.
- De Vos W, Casselman J, Swennen GR. Cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) imaging of the oral and maxillofacial region: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 38: 609–25.
- Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–10.
- Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983; 83: 382–90.
- Chien PC, Parks ET, Eraso F. Comparison of reliability in anatomical landmark identification using two-dimensional digital cephalometrics and three-dimensional cone beam computed tomography in vivo. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2009; 38: 262–73.
- Yitschaky O, Redlich M, Abed Y Comparison of common hard tissue cephalometric measurements between computed tomography 3D reconstruction and conventional 2D cephalometric images. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 13–18.
- Ludlow JB, Gubler M, Cevidanes L, Mol A. Precision of cephalometric landmark identification: cone-beam computed tomography vs conventional cephalometric views. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 312.e1–10; discussion 312–13.
- Grauer D, Cevidanes LS, Styner MA. Accuracy and landmark error calculation using cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 286–94.
- Damstra J, Fourie Z, Ren Y. Comparison between two-dimensional and midsagittal three-dimensional cephalometric measurements of dry human skulls. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 49; 392–95.
- Cattaneo PM, Bloch CB, Calmar D. Comparison between conventional and cone-beam computed tomography-generated cephalograms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 798–802.
- van Vlijmen OJ, Bergé SJ, Swennen GR. Comparison of cephalometric radiographs obtained from cone-beam computed tomography scans and conventional radiographs. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67: 92–97.
- Farronato G, Garagiola U, Dominici A. ‘Ten-point’ 3D cephalometric analysis using low-dosage cone beam computed tomography. Prog Orthod 2010; 11: 2–12.
- Mills JR. Principles and Practice of Orthodontics. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1983.
- Radiation protection: cone beam ct for dental and maxillofacial radiology evidence based guidelines. SEDENTEXCT Project, 2011. www.sedentexct.eu.