201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11692661)
1. How to improve digital dental radiograph reproducibility: an individualized technique.
Muratore F; Tripodi D; Teté S; de Fazio P; Festa F
Int J Comput Dent; 2001 Apr; 4(2):117-24. PubMed ID: 11692661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Current practice in conventional and digital intraoral radiography: problems and solutions.
Fuhrmann AW
Int J Comput Dent; 2006 Jan; 9(1):61-8. PubMed ID: 16608054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Digital radiography: improving image quality.
Kutsch VK
Pract Proced Aesthet Dent; 2006 Jun; 18(5):289-90. PubMed ID: 16903533
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Comparison of complementary metal oxide semiconductor and charge-coupled device intraoral X-ray detectors using subjective image quality.
Kitagawa H; Scheetz JP; Farman AG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):408-11. PubMed ID: 15070845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A Comparison of Technique Errors using Two Radiographic Intra-oral Receptor-holding Devices.
Mauriello SM; Tang Q; Johnson KB; Hadgraft HH; Platin E
J Dent Hyg; 2015 Dec; 89(6):384-9. PubMed ID: 26684996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Quantitative analysis of errors in alveolar crest level caused by discrepant projection geometry in digital subtraction radiography: an in vivo study.
Huh KH; Lee SS; Jeon IS; Yi WJ; Heo MS; Choi SC
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2005 Dec; 100(6):750-5. PubMed ID: 16301158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Diagnostic accuracy of two software modalities for detection of caries lesions in digital radiographs from four dental systems.
Hintze H
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2006 Mar; 35(2):78-82. PubMed ID: 16549433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Standards for intraoral radiographic imaging.
Farman AG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Sep; 29(5):257-9. PubMed ID: 10980558
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Digital radiographic imaging: is the dental practice ready?
Parks ET
J Am Dent Assoc; 2008 Apr; 139(4):477-81. PubMed ID: 18385032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Digital radiography: the standard of care.
Samaras CD
Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2008 Oct; 29(8):506, 508-9. PubMed ID: 18935789
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. A simplified method to obtain perceptibility curves for direct dental digital radiography.
Stamatakis HC; Yoshiura K; Shi XQ; Welander U; McDavid WD
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Mar; 28(2):112-5. PubMed ID: 10522200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Phosphor plate radiography: an integral component of the filmless practice.
Benjamin S
Dent Today; 2010 Nov; 29(11):89. PubMed ID: 21133024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Dental digital radiography.
Moore WS
Tex Dent J; 2002 May; 119(5):404-12. PubMed ID: 12046403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [The measurement parameters in dental radiography: a comparison between traditional and digital technics].
Lazzerini F; Minorati D; Nessi R; Gagliani M; Uslenghi CM
Radiol Med; 1996 Apr; 91(4):364-9. PubMed ID: 8643845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions.
Wiranto MG; Engelbrecht WP; Tutein Nolthenius HE; van der Meer WJ; Ren Y
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Jan; 143(1):140-7. PubMed ID: 23273370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
