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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11174581)

  • 21. High resolution charge-coupled device sensor vs. medium resolution photostimulable phosphor plate digital receptors for detection of root fractures in vitro.
    Wenzel A; Kirkevang LL
    Dent Traumatol; 2005 Feb; 21(1):32-6. PubMed ID: 15660754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A comparison of the response of storage phosphor and film radiography to small variations in X-ray exposure.
    Hildebolt CF; Fletcher G; Yokoyama-Crothers N; Conover GL; Vannier MW
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 May; 26(3):147-51. PubMed ID: 9442600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. In vitro perception of low-contrast features in digital, film, and digitized dental radiographs: a receiver operating characteristic analysis.
    Grassl U; Schulze RK
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2007 May; 103(5):694-701. PubMed ID: 17466887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Performance evaluation and testing of digital intra-oral radiographic systems.
    Doyle P; Finney L
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):313-7. PubMed ID: 16461488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A comparison of the imaging characteristics of the new Kodak Hyper Speed G film with the current T-MAT G/RA film and the CR 9000 system.
    Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Verdun FR
    Phys Med Biol; 2005 Oct; 50(19):4541-52. PubMed ID: 16177488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Effects of different exposure values on diagnostic accuracy of digital images.
    Pfeiffer P; Schmage P; Nergiz I; Platzer U
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Apr; 31(4):257-60. PubMed ID: 11203933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Image distortion and spatial resolution of a commercially available cone-beam computed tomography machine.
    Ballrick JW; Palomo JM; Ruch E; Amberman BD; Hans MG
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 Oct; 134(4):573-82. PubMed ID: 18929276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Sensitometric comparison of Kodak EKTASPEED Plus, Ektaspeed, and Ultra-speed Dental Films.
    Thunthy KH; Weinberg R
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1995 Jan; 79(1):114-6. PubMed ID: 7614149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Fluoroscopic image quality in the film and filmless eras: a standardized comparison performed in coronary interventional facilities.
    Laskey W; Wondrow M; Chambers C
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2003 Mar; 58(3):383-90. PubMed ID: 12594708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Sensitometric and clinical evaluation of a new F-speed dental X-ray film.
    Syriopoulos K; Velders XL; Sanderink GC; van Der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Jan; 30(1):40-4. PubMed ID: 11175272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Sensitometric evaluation of a new E-speed dental radiographic film.
    Price C
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Feb; 24(1):30-6. PubMed ID: 8593905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Perceptibility of defects in an aluminum test object: a comparison of the RVG-S and first generation VIXA systems with and without added niobium filtration.
    Wakoh M; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Kelly MS; Kuroyanagi K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Nov; 24(4):211-4. PubMed ID: 9161163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Quantitative determination of radio-opacity: equivalence of digital and film X-ray systems.
    Nomoto R; Mishima A; Kobayashi K; McCabe JF; Darvell BW; Watts DC; Momoi Y; Hirano S
    Dent Mater; 2008 Jan; 24(1):141-7. PubMed ID: 17923153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Exposure variability and image quality in computed radiography.
    Fauber TL
    Radiol Technol; 2009; 80(3):209-15. PubMed ID: 19153197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Visually detectable resolution of intraoral dental films.
    Künzel A; Scherkowski D; Willers R; Becker J
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):385-9. PubMed ID: 15070841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Optimal processing of Ektaspeed dental film.
    Fjellström CA; Fredholm U; Julin P; Rehnmark S
    Swed Dent J; 1986; 10(4):137-43. PubMed ID: 3466376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Is digital better in dental radiography?
    Zdesar U; Fortuna T; Valantic B; Skrk D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):138-9. PubMed ID: 18375462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Objective and subjective evaluations of Kodak Ektaspeed Plus dental x-ray film.
    Conover GL; Hildebolt CF; Anthony D
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1995 Feb; 79(2):246-50. PubMed ID: 7614190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Image quality of film transparency printer output of digital dental radiographs.
    Sakurai T; Matsumoto Y; Onoyama K; Kawamata R; Kashima I
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2005 Apr; 99(4):490-5. PubMed ID: 15772599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.