76 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10490742)
1. Effects of collimator size of a dental X-ray unit on image contrast.
Falk A; Lindhe JE; Rohlin M; Nilsson M
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Sep; 28(5):261-6. PubMed ID: 10490742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Energy imparted from intraoral radiography.
Stenström B; Henrikson CO; Karlsson L; Sarby B
Swed Dent J; 1986; 10(4):125-36. PubMed ID: 3466375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Kerma area product (KAP) and scatter measurements for intraoral X-ray machines using three different types of round collimation compared with rectangular beam limiter.
Magill D; Ngo NJH; Felice MA; Mupparapu M
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2019 Feb; 48(2):20180183. PubMed ID: 30346798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 1: phantom validity.
Yoshiura K; Kawazu T; Chikui T; Tatsumi M; Tokumori K; Tanaka T; Kanda S
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Jan; 87(1):115-22. PubMed ID: 9927090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Radiation dose reduction using novel size 1 and size 0 rectangular collimators in pediatric dental imaging.
Mupparapu M; Bass T; Axline D; Felice M; Magill D
Quintessence Int; 2020; 51(6):502-509. PubMed ID: 32368765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reducing the risk of intraoral radiographic imaging with collimation and thyroid shielding.
Johnson KB; Ludlow JB; Mauriello SM; Platin E
Gen Dent; 2014; 62(4):34-40. PubMed ID: 24983168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Absorbed doses from intraoral radiography with special emphasis on collimator dimensions.
Stenström B; Henrikson CO; Holm B; Richter S
Swed Dent J; 1986; 10(1-2):59-71. PubMed ID: 3458320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Pediatric Phantom Dosimetry Evaluation of a New Rectangular Collimator.
Martinez A; Yepes JF; Jones JE; Wong P; Johnson KB; Canady S; Tang Q
J Dent Child (Chic); 2023 Jan; 90(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 37106534
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Effects of contrast equalization on energy imparted to the patient: a comparison of two dental generators and two types of intraoral film.
Helmrot E; Carlsson GA; Eckerdal O
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1994 May; 23(2):83-90. PubMed ID: 7835508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Dose contributions to the Swedish population from oral radiography.
Stenström B
Swed Dent J Suppl; 1986; 40():1-62. PubMed ID: 3467441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Intraoral radiology in general dental practices - a comparison of digital and film-based X-ray systems with regard to radiation protection and dose reduction.
Anissi HD; Geibel MA
Rofo; 2014 Aug; 186(8):762-7. PubMed ID: 24648236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Image quality assessment and radiation doses in intraoral radiography.
Yakoumakis EN; Tierris CE; Stefanou EP; Phanourakis IG; Proukakis CC
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Mar; 91(3):362-8. PubMed ID: 11250637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effective dose equivalent from intraoral radiography.
Stenström B; Henrikson CO; Karlsson L; Sarby B
Swed Dent J; 1987; 11(1-2):71-7. PubMed ID: 3473713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effects of BID length and shape on the surface area and volume of tissue exposed during dental radiography.
Hardman PK; Masood F
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2005 Feb; 6(1):10-7. PubMed ID: 15719072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Development of phantom for quantitative analyses of human dentin mineral density.
Hayashi-Sakai S; Kondo T; Kasuga Y; Sakamoto M; Endo H; Sakai J
Biomed Mater Eng; 2015; 26(1-2):57-65. PubMed ID: 26484556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of dental radiation dose reduction utilizing mathematical pediatric phantom models: applications in clinical practice.
Magill D; Korman S; Felice M; Mupparapu M
Quintessence Int; 2020; 51(3):238-245. PubMed ID: 32020134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparing planar image quality of rotating slat and parallel hole collimation: influence of system modeling.
Van Holen R; Vandenberghe S; Staelens S; Lemahieu I
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Apr; 53(7):1989-2002. PubMed ID: 18356576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An evaluation of lead foil in dental X-ray film packets. 2. The effect of back-scattered radiation on radiographic contrast when the density is maintained at an optimum level.
Price C
Br Dent J; 1972 Oct; 133(8):343-6. PubMed ID: 4510027
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluation of a new F speed dental X-ray film. The effect of processing solutions and a comparison with D and E speed films.
Farman TT; Farman AG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):41-5. PubMed ID: 10654035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Correction of photon attenuation and collimator response for a body-contouring SPECT/CT imaging system.
Seo Y; Wong KH; Sun M; Franc BL; Hawkins RA; Hasegawa BH
J Nucl Med; 2005 May; 46(5):868-77. PubMed ID: 15872362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
