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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11681484)

  • 21. Dependency of dose response of five charge-coupled device-based digital intra-oral radiographic systems on tube voltage.
    Nishikawa K; Shibuya H; Wakoh M; Kuroyanagi K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Nov; 28(6):364-7. PubMed ID: 10578191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Optical densities of dental resin composites: a comparison of CCD, storage phosphor, and Ektaspeed plus radiographic film.
    Farman TT; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Goldsmith LJ
    Gen Dent; 1996; 44(6):532-7. PubMed ID: 9515395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy.
    Chotas HG; Ravin CE
    Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):679-82. PubMed ID: 11230639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Sliding window adaptive histogram equalization of intraoral radiographs: effect on image quality.
    Sund T; Møystad A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2006 May; 35(3):133-8. PubMed ID: 16618843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Comparative investigation of subjective image quality of digital intraoral radiographs processed with 3 image-processing algorithms.
    Li G
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2004 Jun; 97(6):762-7. PubMed ID: 15184861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
    Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
    Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Visual linearization of the display of digital radiographs.
    Li G; Yoshiura K; Welander U; Sällstrom P; McDavid WD
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Mar; 31(2):131-6. PubMed ID: 12076054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Absolute measures of image quality for the Sens-A-Ray direct digital intraoral radiography system.
    Welander U; McDavid WD; Mörner AC; Tronje G; Tokuoka O; Fuchihata H; Nelvig P; Dove SB
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1995 Sep; 80(3):345-50. PubMed ID: 7489279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. A comparison of two intraoral CCD sensor systems in terms of image quality and interobserver agreement.
    Schulze D; Rother UJ; Fuhrmann AW; Tietke M
    Int J Comput Dent; 2003 Apr; 6(2):141-50. PubMed ID: 14552151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Evaluation of automatic exposure control in a direct digital intraoral system.
    Benchimol D; Näsström K; Shi X
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Sep; 38(6):407-12. PubMed ID: 19700535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparison of low-contrast detail perception on storage phosphor radiographs and digital flat panel detector images.
    Peer S; Neitzel U; Giacomuzzi SM; Peer R; Gassner E; Steingruber I; Jaschke W
    IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Mar; 20(3):239-42. PubMed ID: 11341713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Evaluating phantom image quality parameters to optimise patient radiation dose in dental digital radiology.
    Gonzalez L; Vano E; Fernandez R; Ziraldo V; Delgado J; Delgado V; Moro J; Ubeda C
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Aug; 151(1):95-101. PubMed ID: 22232776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Digital radiography in general dental practice: a field study.
    Hellén-Halme K; Nilsson M; Petersson A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Jul; 36(5):249-55. PubMed ID: 17586850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Development and evaluation of digital subtraction radiography computer program.
    Lee SS; Huh YJ; Kim KY; Heo MS; Choi SC; Koak JY; Heo SJ; Han CH; Yi WJ
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2004 Oct; 98(4):471-5. PubMed ID: 15472663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Observer performance in the assessment of contract enhanced CT: effects of contrast medium and grey scale window on detection of defects in a simulated peripheral rim border.
    Wakoh M; Yamamoto K; Kuroyanagi K
    Bull Tokyo Dent Coll; 1995 May; 36(2):53-60. PubMed ID: 8689743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.