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 *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11194373)

  • 1. Comparison of digital dental X-ray systems with self-developing film and manual processing for endodontic file length determination.
    Eikenberg S; Vandre R
    J Endod; 2000 Feb; 26(2):65-7. PubMed ID: 11194373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Accuracy of film-based, digital, and enhanced digital images for endodontic length determination.
    Woolhiser GA; Brand JW; Hoen MM; Geist JR; Pikula AA; Pink FE
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2005 Apr; 99(4):499-504. PubMed ID: 15772601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Endodontic measurement accuracy and perceived radiograph quality: effects of film speed and density.
    Sheaffer JC; Eleazer PD; Scheetz JP; Clark SJ; Farman AG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2003 Oct; 96(4):441-8. PubMed ID: 14561969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Endodontic working length assessment. Comparison of storage phosphor digital imaging and radiographic film.
    Cederberg RA; Tidwell E; Frederiksen NL; Benson BW
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Mar; 85(3):325-8. PubMed ID: 9540092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An in vitro comparison of 10 radiographic methods for working length estimation.
    Rushton VE; Shearer AC; Horner K; Czajka J
    Int Endod J; 1995 May; 28(3):149-53. PubMed ID: 8626199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Measurement of the distance between the minor foramen and the anatomic apex by digital and conventional radiography.
    Melius B; Jiang J; Zhu Q
    J Endod; 2002 Feb; 28(2):125-6. PubMed ID: 11833685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The use of E-speed film for root canal length determination.
    Powell-Cullingford AW; Pitt Ford TR
    Int Endod J; 1993 Sep; 26(5):268-72. PubMed ID: 8300258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Interpretation of endodontic file lengths using RadioVisiography.
    Leddy BJ; Miles DA; Newton CW; Brown CE
    J Endod; 1994 Nov; 20(11):542-5. PubMed ID: 7643038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of radiovisiography with radiographic film in root length determination.
    Ong EY; Pitt Ford TR
    Int Endod J; 1995 Jan; 28(1):25-9. PubMed ID: 7642325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Image quality of direct digital intraoral x-ray sensors in assessing root canal length. The RadioVisioGraphy, Visualix/VIXA, Sens-A-Ray, and Flash Dent systems compared with Ektaspeed films.
    Sanderink GC; Huiskens R; van der Stelt PF; Welander US; Stheeman SE
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Jul; 78(1):125-32. PubMed ID: 8078654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A comparison of digitally scanned radiographs with conventional film for the detection of small endodontic instruments.
    Fuge KN; Stuck AM; Love RM
    Int Endod J; 1998 Mar; 31(2):123-6. PubMed ID: 9868939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of combined digital imaging parameters on endodontic file measurements.
    de Oliveira ML; Pinto GC; Ambrosano GM; Tosoni GM
    J Endod; 2012 Oct; 38(10):1404-7. PubMed ID: 22980188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Radiovisiography for imaging root canals: an in vitro comparison with conventional radiography.
    Shearer AC; Horner K; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 1990 Oct; 21(10):789-94. PubMed ID: 2082410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Measurement of endodontic file lengths: a density profile plot analysis.
    Piepenbring ME; Potter BJ; Weller RN; Loushine RJ
    J Endod; 2000 Oct; 26(10):615-8. PubMed ID: 11199805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Radiographic determination of canal length direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography.
    Hedrick RT; Dove SB; Peters DD; McDavid WD
    J Endod; 1994 Jul; 20(7):320-6. PubMed ID: 7996092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of phosphor-plate digital images with conventional radiographs for the perceived clarity of fine endodontic files and periapical lesions.
    Friedlander LT; Love RM; Chandler NP
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2002 Mar; 93(3):321-7. PubMed ID: 11925542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Tuned-aperture computed tomography versus parallax analog and digital radiographic images in detecting second mesiobuccal canals in maxillary first molars.
    Barton DJ; Clark SJ; Eleazer PD; Scheetz JP; Farman AG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2003 Aug; 96(2):223-8. PubMed ID: 12931097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Estimating distances on direct digital images and conventional radiographs.
    Versteeg KH; Sanderink GC; van Ginkel FC; van der Stelt PF
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1997 Apr; 128(4):439-43. PubMed ID: 9103793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Linear measurements to determine working length of curved canals with fine files: conventional versus digital radiography.
    Brito-Júnior M; Santos LA; Baleeiro EN; Pêgo MM; Eleutério NB; Camilo CC
    J Oral Sci; 2009 Dec; 51(4):559-64. PubMed ID: 20032608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.