These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10519766)

  • 1. Assessments of the physical performance of 2 generations of 2 direct digital intraoral sensors.
    Attaelmanan AG; Borg E; Gröndahl HG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Oct; 88(4):517-23. PubMed ID: 10519766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Signal-to-noise ratios of 6 intraoral digital sensors.
    Attaelmanan AG; Borg E; Gröndahl HG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 May; 91(5):611-5. PubMed ID: 11346743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of physical properties of different digital intraoral sensors.
    Al-Rawi W; Teich S
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2013 Sep; 34(8):e76-83. PubMed ID: 24568289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Subjective image quality of solid-state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intra-oral radiography.
    Borg E; Attaelmanan A; Gröndahl HG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Mar; 29(2):70-5. PubMed ID: 10808218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effect of bit depth and kVp of digital radiography for detection of subtle differences.
    Heo MS; Choi DH; Benavides E; Huh KH; Yi WJ; Lee SS; Choi SC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Aug; 108(2):278-83. PubMed ID: 19272812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Conventional and predicted perceptibility curves for contrast-enhanced direct digital intraoral radiographs.
    Yoshiura K; Welander U; Shi XQ; Li G; Kawazu T; Tatsumi M; Okamura K; McDavid WD; Kanda S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Jul; 30(4):219-25. PubMed ID: 11681484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of observer performance in determining the position of endodontic files with physical measures in the evaluation of dental X-ray imaging systems.
    Vandre RH; Pajak JC; Abdel-Nabi H; Farman TT; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jul; 29(4):216-22. PubMed ID: 10918454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of psychophysical properties of two intraoral digital sensors on low-contrast perceptibility.
    Shi XQ; Benchimol D; Nasstrom K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(10):20130249. PubMed ID: 24404600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Criteria for the assessment of intrinsic performances of digital radiographic intraoral sensors.
    Mondou D; Bonnet E; Coudert JL; Jourlin M; Molteni R; Pachod V
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Sep; 3(9):751-7. PubMed ID: 8883516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of psychophysical properties of two intraoral digital sensors on low-contrast perceptibility.
    Shi XQ; Benchimol D; Näsström K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(10):20130249. PubMed ID: 24170798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Ex vivo evaluation of new 2D and 3D dental radiographic technology for detecting caries.
    Gaalaas L; Tyndall D; Mol A; Everett ET; Bangdiwala A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(3):20150281. PubMed ID: 26670605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Radiographic detection of approximal caries: a comparison of dental films and digital imaging systems.
    Syriopoulos K; Sanderink GC; Velders XL; van der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Sep; 29(5):312-8. PubMed ID: 10980568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Influence of the validation method on diagnostic accuracy for caries. A comparison of six digital and two conventional radiographic systems.
    Hintze H; Wenzel A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Jan; 31(1):44-9. PubMed ID: 11803388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after correction for attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response.
    Li G; Welander U; Yoshiura K; Shi XQ; McDavid WD
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):372-8. PubMed ID: 15070839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of image quality parameters of representative intraoral digital radiographic systems.
    Udupa H; Mah P; Dove SB; McDavid WD
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2013 Dec; 116(6):774-83. PubMed ID: 24237729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 2: optimum exposure conditions for detection of small mass changes in 6 intraoral radiography systems.
    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):123-9. PubMed ID: 9927091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [A comparative study of analog and digital intraoral x-ray image detector systems].
    Blendl C; Stengel C; Zdunczyk S
    Rofo; 2000 Jun; 172(6):534-41. PubMed ID: 10916550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Analysis of the reproducibility of the gray values and noise of a direct digital radiography system.
    Poleti ML; Fernandes TM; Teixeira RC; Capelozza AL; Rubira-Bullen IR
    Braz Oral Res; 2015; 29():. PubMed ID: 26017488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparative study of two digital radiographic storage phosphor systems.
    Oliveira AE; de Almeida SM; Paganini GA; Haiter Neto F; Bóscolo FN
    Braz Dent J; 2000; 11(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 11210259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Radiation dose reduction in direct digital panoramic radiography.
    Gavala S; Donta C; Tsiklakis K; Boziari A; Kamenopoulou V; Stamatakis HC
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Jul; 71(1):42-8. PubMed ID: 18448296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.