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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12087445)

  • 1. Accuracy of reformatted CT image for measuring the pre-implant site: analysis of the image distortion related to the gantry angle change.
    Choi SC; Ann CH; Choi HM; Heo MS; Lee SS
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Jul; 31(4):273-7. PubMed ID: 12087445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Computed tomography for dental implants: the influence of the gantry angle and mandibular positioning on the bone height and width.
    Dantas JA; Montebello Filho A; Campos PS
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2005 Jan; 34(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 15709099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accuracy of computerized tomography for the evaluation of mandibular sites prior to implant placement.
    Sforza NM; Franchini F; Lamma A; Botticelli S; Ghigi G
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2007 Dec; 27(6):589-95. PubMed ID: 18092453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of mandibular positioning on preimplant site measurement of the mandible in reformatted CT.
    Kim KD; Jeong HG; Choi SH; Hwang EH; Park CS
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2003 Apr; 23(2):177-83. PubMed ID: 12710821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Conventional spiral and low-dose computed mandibular tomography for dental implant planning.
    Ekestubbe A
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1999; 138():1-82. PubMed ID: 10635103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of implant treatment planning utilizing template-guided reformatted computed tomography.
    Besimo CE; Lambrecht JT; Guindy JS
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 10654036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Radiologic measurements of the mandible: a comparison between CT-reformatted and conventional tomographic images.
    Hanazawa T; Sano T; Seki K; Okano T
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2004 Apr; 15(2):226-32. PubMed ID: 15008935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Cross-sectional imaging of the jaws for dental implant treatment: accuracy of linear tomography using a panoramic machine in comparison with reformatted computed tomography.
    Naitoh M; Kawamata A; Iida H; Ariji E
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2002; 17(1):107-12. PubMed ID: 11858566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Dental implant treatment planning with reformatted computed tomography.
    Besimo C; Lambrecht JT; Nidecker A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Nov; 24(4):264-7. PubMed ID: 9161173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. CT metal artefact reduction of total knee prostheses using angled gantry multiplanar reformation.
    Lewis M; Toms AP; Reid K; Bugg W
    Knee; 2010 Aug; 17(4):279-82. PubMed ID: 20356751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of over- and underexposure on the sharpness of the image of a marker in computer-assisted dental implant tomography.
    Thunthy KH
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Jul; 31(4):278-80. PubMed ID: 12087446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accurate linear measurements in the anterior maxilla using orthoradially reformatted spiral computed tomography.
    Cavalcanti MG; Yang J; Ruprecht A; Vannier MW
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 May; 28(3):137-40. PubMed ID: 10740466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of axial plane deviation on cross-sectional height in reformatted computed tomography of the mandible.
    Kohavi D; Bar-Ziv J; Marmary Y
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 May; 26(3):189-91. PubMed ID: 9442606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Enhancing implant surgery planning via computerized image processing.
    Cucchiara R; Franchini F; Lamma A; Lamma E; Sansoni T; Sarti E
    Int J Comput Dent; 2001 Jan; 4(1):9-24. PubMed ID: 11441568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Validation of spiral computed tomography for dental implants.
    Cavalcanti MG; Yang J; Ruprecht A; Vannier MW
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 Nov; 27(6):329-33. PubMed ID: 10895630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery.
    Tal H; Moses O
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1991 Feb; 20(1):40-2. PubMed ID: 1884852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging compared with computed tomography for implant planning.
    Aguiar MF; Marques AP; Carvalho AC; Cavalcanti MG
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2008 Apr; 19(4):362-5. PubMed ID: 18266874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Planning of dental implant size with digital panoramic radiographs, CBCT-generated panoramic images, and CBCT cross-sectional images.
    Correa LR; Spin-Neto R; Stavropoulos A; Schropp L; da Silveira HE; Wenzel A
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2014 Jun; 25(6):690-5. PubMed ID: 23442085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Interpretation of linear and computed tomograms in the assessment of implant recipient sites.
    Todd AD; Gher ME; Quintero G; Richardson AC
    J Periodontol; 1993 Dec; 64(12):1243-9. PubMed ID: 8106953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. CT data and its CAD and CAM utility in implant planning: part I.
    Voitik AJ
    J Oral Implantol; 2002; 28(6):302-3. PubMed ID: 12498541
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.