137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12324798)
1. Contrast perception in digitized panoramic radiographs compared with their film-based origin.
Schulze RK; Rosing ST; D'Hoedt B
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2002 Sep; 94(3):388-94. PubMed ID: 12324798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Conversion of teaching file cases from film to digital format: a comparison between use of a diagnostic-quality digitizer and use of a flatbed scanner with transparency adapter.
Bassignani MJ; Bubash-Faust L; Ciambotti J; Moran R; McIlhenny J
Acad Radiol; 2003 May; 10(5):536-42. PubMed ID: 12755543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Quality of film-based and digital panoramic radiography.
Molander B; Gröndahl HG; Ekestubbe A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):32-6. PubMed ID: 15140820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Morphodigital evaluation of the trabecular bone pattern in the mandible using digitized panoramic and periapical radiographs.
Aranha Watanabe PC; Moreira Lopes De Faria L; Mardegan Issa JP; Caldeira Monteiro SA; Tiossi R
Minerva Stomatol; 2009 Mar; 58(3):73-80. PubMed ID: 19357613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 1: phantom validity.
Yoshiura K; Kawazu T; Chikui T; Tatsumi M; Tokumori K; Tanaka T; Kanda S
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Jan; 87(1):115-22. PubMed ID: 9927090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of a new digital panoramic system: a comparison with film.
Ramesh A; Tyndall DA; Ludlow JB
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Mar; 30(2):98-100. PubMed ID: 11313729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The accuracy and reliability of radiographic methods for the assessment of marginal bone level around oral implants.
De Smet E; Jacobs R; Gijbels F; Naert I
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 May; 31(3):176-81. PubMed ID: 12058265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison between panoramic digital and digitized images to detect simulated periapical lesions using radiographic subtraction.
Miguens SA; Veeck EB; Fontanella VR; da Costa NP
J Endod; 2008 Dec; 34(12):1500-3. PubMed ID: 19026882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Perception of anatomical structures in digitally filtered and conventional panoramic radiographs: a clinical evaluation.
Baksi BG; Alpöz E; Sogur E; Mert A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 Oct; 39(7):424-30. PubMed ID: 20841460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Diagnostic accuracy of in vitro panoramic radiographs depending on the exposure.
Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Reinert S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Feb; 36(2):68-74. PubMed ID: 17403882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Clinical study of the sensitivity and dynamic range of three digital systems, E-speed film and digitized film.
Bóscolo FN; Oliveira AE; Almeida SM; Haiter CF; Haiter Neto F
Braz Dent J; 2001; 12(3):191-5. PubMed ID: 11696917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Skeletal surveys for child abuse: comparison of interpretation using digitized images and screen-film radiographs.
Youmans DC; Don S; Hildebolt C; Shackelford GD; Luker GD; McAlister WH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Nov; 171(5):1415-9. PubMed ID: 9798889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Accuracy of digital and film panoramic radiographs for assessment of position and morphology of mandibular third molars and prevalence of dental anomalies and pathologies.
Benediktsdottir IS; Hintze H; Petersen JK; Wenzel A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Mar; 32(2):109-15. PubMed ID: 12775665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A comparison of peripheral marginal bone loss at dental implants measured with conventional intraoral film and digitized radiographs.
Kamburoğlu K; Gülşahı A; Genç Y; Paksoy CS
J Oral Implantol; 2012 Jun; 38(3):211-9. PubMed ID: 20712442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 2: optimum exposure conditions for detection of small mass changes in 6 intraoral radiography systems.
Yoshiura K; Kawazu T; Chikui T; Tatsumi M; Tokumori K; Tanaka T; Kanda S
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Jan; 87(1):123-9. PubMed ID: 9927091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparative evaluation of film and digital panoramic radiographs in the assessment of position and morphology of impacted mandibular third molars.
Mahesh MS; Mahima VG; Patil K
Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(2):219-24. PubMed ID: 21891889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Approximal caries depth assessment with storage phosphor versus film radiography. Evaluation of the caries-specific Oslo enhancement procedure.
Svanaes DB; Moystad A; Larheim TA
Caries Res; 2000; 34(6):448-53. PubMed ID: 11093017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Conventional radiographs vs digitized radiographs: image quality assessment.
Parissis N; Kondylidou-Sidira A; Tsirlis A; Patias P
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2005 Nov; 34(6):353-6. PubMed ID: 16227478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Sensitometric properties of Agfa Dentus OrthoLux, Agfa Dentus ST8G, and Kodak Ektavision panoramic radiographic film.
Wakoh M; Nishikawa K; Kobayashi N; Farman AG; Kuroyanagi K
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Feb; 91(2):244-51. PubMed ID: 11174605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
