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.
229 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14709608)
1. Quality of digital pre-implant tomography: comparison of film-screen images with storage phosphor images at normal and low dose. Ekestubbe A; Gröndahl HG; Molander B Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Sep; 32(5):322-6. PubMed ID: 14709608 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Lumbar spine radiography: digital flat-panel detector versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems in monkeys as a pediatric model. Ludwig K; Ahlers K; Wormanns D; Freund M; Bernhardt TM; Diederich S; Heindel W Radiology; 2003 Oct; 229(1):140-4. PubMed ID: 12925714 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Detection of approximal caries with a storage phosphor system. A comparison of enhanced digital images with dental X-ray film. Møystad A; Svanaes DB; Risnes S; Larheim TA; Gröndahl HG Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Sep; 25(4):202-6. PubMed ID: 9084274 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparing image quality of flat-panel chest radiography with storage phosphor radiography and film-screen radiography. Ganten M; Radeleff B; Kampschulte A; Daniels MD; Kauffmann GW; Hansmann J AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Jul; 181(1):171-6. PubMed ID: 12818852 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. On the dynamic range of different X-ray photon detectors in intra-oral radiography. A comparison of image quality in film, charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems. Borg E; Gröndahl HG Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Apr; 25(2):82-8. PubMed ID: 9446978 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Some characteristics of solid-state and photo-stimulable phosphor detectors for intra-oral radiography. Borg E Swed Dent J Suppl; 1999; 139():i-viii, 1-67. PubMed ID: 10635104 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of linear measurements made from storage phosphor and dental radiographs. Conover GL; Hildebolt CF; Yokoyama-Crothers N Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Nov; 25(5):268-73. PubMed ID: 9161181 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. Bacher K; Smeets P; Bonnarens K; De Hauwere A; Verstraete K; Thierens H AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Oct; 181(4):923-9. PubMed ID: 14500203 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Storage phosphor and film-screen mammography: performance with different mammographic techniques. Kheddache S; Thilander-Klang A; Lanhede B; Månsson LG; Bjurstam N; Ackerholm P; Björneld L Eur Radiol; 1999; 9(4):591-7. PubMed ID: 10354868 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The effect of dose reduction on the detection of anatomical structures on panoramic radiographs. Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Reinert S Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2006 Jul; 35(4):271-7. PubMed ID: 16798925 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Intra-oral storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the assessment of alveolar bone structures. Kaeppler G; Vogel A; Axmann-Krcmar D Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Nov; 29(6):362-7. PubMed ID: 11114666 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Image quality and radiation exposure in digital mammography with storage phosphor screens in a magnification technic]. Fiedler E; Aichinger U; Böhner C; Säbel M; Schulz-Wendtland R; Bautz W Rofo; 1999 Jul; 171(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 10464507 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparing the performance of storage phosphor plate and Insight film images for the detection of proximal caries depth. Crombie K; Parker ME; Nortje CJ; Sanderink GC SADJ; 2009 Nov; 64(10):452, 454-6, 458-9. PubMed ID: 20306863 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Direct comparison of conventional and computed radiography with a dual-image recording technique. MacMahon H; Sanada S; Doi K; Giger M; Xu XW; Yin FF; Montner SM; Carlin M Radiographics; 1991 Mar; 11(2):259-68. PubMed ID: 2028063 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Storage phosphor radiographs vs conventional films: interpreters' perceptions of diagnostic quality. Fuhrman CR; Gur D; Good B; Rockette H; Cooperstein LA; Feist JH AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1988 May; 150(5):1011-4. PubMed ID: 3258701 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Computed and conventional chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and radiation dose. Ramli K; Abdullah BJ; Ng KH; Mahmud R; Hussain AF Australas Radiol; 2005 Dec; 49(6):460-6. PubMed ID: 16351609 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Selenium-based digital radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography of the hands and feet: a subjective comparison. Piraino DW; Davros WJ; Lieber M; Richmond BJ; Schils JP; Recht MP; Grooff PN; Belhobek GH AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Jan; 172(1):177-84. PubMed ID: 9888764 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cross-sectional tomograms obtained with four panoramic radiographic units in the assessment of implant site measurements. Peltola JS; Mattila M Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Sep; 33(5):295-300. PubMed ID: 15585805 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]