147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12058262)
1. A comparison of the effective dose from scanography with periapical radiography.
Gijbels F; Jacobs R; Sanderink G; De Smet E; Nowak B; Van Dam J; Van Steenberghe D
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 May; 31(3):159-63. PubMed ID: 12058262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of radiation levels from computed tomography and conventional dental radiographs.
Ngan DC; Kharbanda OP; Geenty JP; Darendeliler MA
Aust Orthod J; 2003 Nov; 19(2):67-75. PubMed ID: 14703331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effective and organ doses from scanography and zonography: a comparison with periapical radiography.
Ekestubbe A; Thilander-Klang A; Lith A; Gröndahl HG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Mar; 33(2):87-92. PubMed ID: 15313999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Organ radiation dose assessment for conventional spiral tomography: a human cadaver study.
Bou Serhal C; van Steenberghe D; Bosmans H; Sanderink GC; Quirynen M; Jacobs R
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2001 Feb; 12(1):85-90. PubMed ID: 11168275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Radiation doses in examination of lower third molars with computed tomography and conventional radiography.
Ohman A; Kull L; Andersson J; Flygare L
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Dec; 37(8):445-52. PubMed ID: 19033429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparative dose measurements by spiral tomography for preimplant diagnosis: the Scanora machine versus the Cranex Tome radiography unit.
Dula K; Mini R; van der Stelt PF; Sanderink GC; Schneeberger P; Buser D
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Jun; 91(6):735-42. PubMed ID: 11402291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Absorbed doses from spiral CT and conventional spiral tomography: a phantom vs. cadaver study.
Bou Serhal C; Jacobs R; Gijbels F; Bosmans H; Hermans R; Quirynen M; van Steenberghe D
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2001 Oct; 12(5):473-8. PubMed ID: 11564107
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effective radiation dose of ProMax 3D cone-beam computerized tomography scanner with different dental protocols.
Qu XM; Li G; Ludlow JB; Zhang ZY; Ma XC
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Dec; 110(6):770-6. PubMed ID: 20952220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography.
Lecomber AR; Yoneyama Y; Lovelock DJ; Hosoi T; Adams AM
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Sep; 30(5):255-9. PubMed ID: 11571544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparative study of the effective radiation doses from cone beam computed tomography and plain radiography for sialography.
Jadu F; Yaffe MJ; Lam EW
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 Jul; 39(5):257-63. PubMed ID: 20587648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Efficacy of lead foil for reducing doses in the head and neck: a simulation study using digital intraoral systems.
Nejaim Y; Silva AI; Brasil DM; Vasconcelos KF; Haiter Neto F; Boscolo FN
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(8):20150065. PubMed ID: 26084474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Radiation doses of collimated vs non-collimated cephalometric exposures.
Gijbels F; Sanderink G; Wyatt J; Van Dam J; Nowak B; Jacobs R
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Mar; 32(2):128-33. PubMed ID: 12775668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation.
Ludlow JB; Davies-Ludlow LE; White SC
J Am Dent Assoc; 2008 Sep; 139(9):1237-43. PubMed ID: 18762634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view.
Hirsch E; Wolf U; Heinicke F; Silva MA
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Jul; 37(5):268-73. PubMed ID: 18606748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Radiation exposure in perfusion CT of the brain.
Ringelstein A; Lechel U; Fahrendorf DM; Altenbernd JC; Forsting M; Schlamann M
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2014; 38(1):25-8. PubMed ID: 24378887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Radiation exposure to critical organs in panoramic dental examination.
Bahreyni Toossi MT; Akbari F; Bayani Roodi S
Acta Med Iran; 2012; 50(12):809-13. PubMed ID: 23456522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Absorbed and effective doses from cone beam volumetric imaging for implant planning.
Okano T; Harata Y; Sugihara Y; Sakaino R; Tsuchida R; Iwai K; Seki K; Araki K
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Feb; 38(2):79-85. PubMed ID: 19176649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Organ doses and subjective image quality of indirect digital panoramic radiography.
Gijbels F; Sanderink G; Bou Serhal C; Pauwels H; Jacobs R
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Nov; 30(6):308-13. PubMed ID: 11641728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Dosimetry of a cone-beam computed tomography machine compared with a digital x-ray machine in orthodontic imaging.
Grünheid T; Kolbeck Schieck JR; Pliska BT; Ahmad M; Larson BE
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Apr; 141(4):436-43. PubMed ID: 22464525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit.
Ludlow JB; Davies-Ludlow LE; Brooks SL
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Jul; 32(4):229-34. PubMed ID: 13679353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
