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 *

131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12324798)

  • 41. Comparison of conventional and digital radiography systems with regard to radiopacity of root canal filling materials.
    Akcay I; Ilhan B; Dundar N
    Int Endod J; 2012 Aug; 45(8):730-6. PubMed ID: 22458866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Discrimination between restorative dental materials by their radiopacity measured in film radiographs and digital images.
    Wenzel A; Hintze H; Hørsted-Bindslev P
    J Forensic Odontostomatol; 1998 Jun; 16(1):8-13. PubMed ID: 9922755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Observer performance based on marginal bone tissue visibility in Scanora panoramic radiography and posterior bitewing radiography.
    Ivanauskaite D; Lindh C; Rohlin M
    Stomatologija; 2008; 10(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 18493164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Panoramic radiography in dental diagnostics.
    Molander B
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1996; 119():1-26. PubMed ID: 8971997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Digital and conventional chest images: observer performance with Film Digital Radiography System.
    Goodman LR; Foley WD; Wilson CR; Rimm AA; Lawson TL
    Radiology; 1986 Jan; 158(1):27-33. PubMed ID: 3940392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Full-field digital mammographic interpretation with prior analog versus prior digitized analog mammography: time for interpretation.
    Garg AS; Rapelyea JA; Rechtman LR; Torrente J; Bittner RB; Coffey CM; Brem RF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jun; 196(6):1436-8. PubMed ID: 21606310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Exposure margin in skeletal radiography and its effect on tube tilt compensation.
    Andersen KK; Carstensen HM
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 1998 May; 21(4):246-51. PubMed ID: 9608380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Comparison of the psychophysical properties of various intraoral film and digital systems by means of the perceptibility curve test.
    Yoshiura K; Welander U; McDavid WD; Li G; Shi XQ; Nakayama E; Shimizu M; Okamura K; Kanda S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Mar; 33(2):98-102. PubMed ID: 15314001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. 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]  

  • 50. Detection of occlusal caries without cavitation by visual inspection, film radiographs, xeroradiographs, and digitized radiographs.
    Wenzel A; Larsen MJ; Fejerskov O
    Caries Res; 1991; 25(5):365-71. PubMed ID: 1747887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Depth of occlusal caries assessed clinically, by conventional film radiographs, and by digitized, processed radiographs.
    Wenzel A; Fejerskov O; Kidd E; Joyston-Bechal S; Groeneveld A
    Caries Res; 1990; 24(5):327-33. PubMed ID: 2261604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Psychophysical properties of a new F-speed intraoral film.
    Mastoris M; Yoshiura K; Welander U; Tsiklakis K; Papadakis E; Li G
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 May; 33(3):158-63. PubMed ID: 15371315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. A comparison of the response of storage phosphor and film radiography to small variations in X-ray exposure.
    Hildebolt CF; Fletcher G; Yokoyama-Crothers N; Conover GL; Vannier MW
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 May; 26(3):147-51. PubMed ID: 9442600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. 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]  

  • 55. Comparison of the reproducibility of storage phosphor and film bitewings for assessment of alveolar bone loss.
    Henriksson CH; Stermer EM; Aass AM; Sandvik L; Møystad A
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2008; 66(6):380-4. PubMed ID: 18932094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Correction for attenuation and visual response in digital radiography.
    Welande U; Yoshiura K; Li G; Sällström P; McDavid WD
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Mar; 31(2):117-25. PubMed ID: 12076052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Radiopacity of endodontic materials using two models for conversion to millimeters of aluminum.
    Ochoa-RodrÍguez VM; Wilches-Visbal JH; Roma B; Coaguila-Llerena H; Tanomaru-Filho M; GonÇalves A; Spin-Neto R; Faria G
    Braz Oral Res; 2020; 34():e080. PubMed ID: 32696910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Image quality of digital and film radiographs in applications sent to the Dental Insurance Office in Sweden for treatment approval.
    Hellén-Halme K; Johansson PM; Håkansson J; Petersson A
    Swed Dent J; 2004; 28(2):77-84. PubMed ID: 15272512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Comparison of a cathode-ray-tube and film for display of computed radiographic images.
    Cook LT; Cox GG; Insana MF; McFadden MA; Hall TJ; Gaborski RS; Lure FY
    Med Phys; 1998 Jul; 25(7 Pt 1):1132-8. PubMed ID: 9682198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Effects of dose reduction on the detectability of standardized radiolucent lesions in digital panoramic radiography.
    Dula K; Sanderink G; van der Stelt PF; Mini R; Buser D
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Aug; 86(2):227-33. PubMed ID: 9720100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.