135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10102603)
21. Effect of mandibular positioning on preimplant site measurement of the mandible in reformatted CT.
Kim KD; Jeong HG; Choi SH; Hwang EH; Park CS
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2003 Apr; 23(2):177-83. PubMed ID: 12710821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Computed tomography for dental implants: the influence of the gantry angle and mandibular positioning on the bone height and width.
Dantas JA; Montebello Filho A; Campos PS
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2005 Jan; 34(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 15709099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery.
Tal H; Moses O
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1991 Feb; 20(1):40-2. PubMed ID: 1884852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Dental implant treatment planning with reformatted computed tomography.
Besimo C; Lambrecht JT; Nidecker A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Nov; 24(4):264-7. PubMed ID: 9161173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Can mandibular depiction be improved by changing the thickness of double-oblique computed tomography images?
Naitoh M; Katsumata A; Hiraiwa Y; Aimiya H; Ohsaki C; Ariji E
Implant Dent; 2008 Sep; 17(3):271-7. PubMed ID: 18784527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Anatomical landmarks of mandibular interforaminal region related to dental implant placement with 3D CBCT: comparison between edentulous and dental mandibles.
Sener E; Onem E; Akar GC; Govsa F; Ozer MA; Pinar Y; Mert A; Baksi Sen BG
Surg Radiol Anat; 2018 Jun; 40(6):615-623. PubMed ID: 29124343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Radiography of the mandible prior to endosseous implant treatment. Localization of the mandibular canal and assessment of trabecular bone.
Lindh C
Swed Dent J Suppl; 1996; 112():1-45. PubMed ID: 8782328
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Low-dose tomographic techniques for dental implant planning.
Ekestubbe A; Gröndahl K; Ekholm S; Johansson PE; Gröndahl HG
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1996; 11(5):650-9. PubMed ID: 8908865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Tuned aperture computed tomography (TACT) for cross-sectional implant site assessment in the posterior mandible.
Rashedi B; Tyndall DA; Ludlow JB; Chaffee NR; Guckes AD
J Prosthodont; 2003 Sep; 12(3):176-86. PubMed ID: 14508739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Evaluation of bone width lateral to the mandibular canal as an alternative approach for implant installation.
Daróz SR; Cardoso ES; Manso MC; Vidigal GM
Implant Dent; 2013 Feb; 22(1):97-101. PubMed ID: 23303270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Accuracy of linear measurements in cone beam computed tomography with different voxel sizes.
Torres MG; Campos PS; Segundo NP; Navarro M; Crusoé-Rebello I
Implant Dent; 2012 Apr; 21(2):150-5. PubMed ID: 22382754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Tracking of the inferior alveolar nerve: its implication in surgical planning.
Agbaje JO; de Casteele EV; Salem AS; Anumendem D; Lambrichts I; Politis C
Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Sep; 21(7):2213-2220. PubMed ID: 27878463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Subjective image quality assessment of cross sectional imaging methods for the symphyseal region of the mandible prior to dental implant placement.
Shelley AM; Brunton P; Horner K
J Dent; 2011 Nov; 39(11):764-70. PubMed ID: 21875641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The validation of 3D spiral CT-based measurements of simulated maxillofacial neoplasms.
Cavalcanti MG; Ruprecht A; Bonomie JM; Vannier MW
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2000 Jun; 89(6):753-8. PubMed ID: 10846133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Location of the mandibular canal: comparison of macroscopic findings, conventional radiography, and computed tomography.
Klinge B; Petersson A; Maly P
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1989; 4(4):327-32. PubMed ID: 2639861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Cross-sectional imaging of the jaws for dental implant treatment: accuracy of linear tomography using a panoramic machine in comparison with reformatted computed tomography.
Naitoh M; Kawamata A; Iida H; Ariji E
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2002; 17(1):107-12. PubMed ID: 11858566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Measurement accuracy of reconstructed 2-D images obtained by multi-slice helical computed tomography.
Naitoh M; Katsumata A; Nohara E; Ohsaki C; Ariji E
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2004 Oct; 15(5):570-4. PubMed ID: 15355399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Evaluation of the inferior alveolar canal for cysts and tumors of the mandible-comparison of multidetector computed tomography and 3-dimensional volume interpolated breath-hold examination magnetic resonance sequence with curved multiplanar reformatted reconstructions.
Srinivasan K; Seith A; Gadodia A; Sharma R; Kumar A; Roychoudhury A; Bhutia O
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Oct; 70(10):2327-32. PubMed ID: 22265163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging compared with computed tomography for implant planning.
Aguiar MF; Marques AP; Carvalho AC; Cavalcanti MG
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2008 Apr; 19(4):362-5. PubMed ID: 18266874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Navigational precision of drilling tools preventing damage to the mandibular canal.
Gaggl A; Schultes G; Kärcher H
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2001 Oct; 29(5):271-5. PubMed ID: 11673921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
