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.
277 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15313998)
1. Radiation exposure during midfacial imaging using 4- and 16-slice computed tomography, cone beam computed tomography systems and conventional radiography. Schulze D; Heiland M; Thurmann H; Adam G Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Mar; 33(2):83-6. PubMed ID: 15313998 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Loubele M; Bogaerts R; Van Dijck E; Pauwels R; Vanheusden S; Suetens P; Marchal G; Sanderink G; Jacobs R Eur J Radiol; 2009 Sep; 71(3):461-8. PubMed ID: 18639404 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography. Chau AC; Fung K Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Apr; 107(4):559-65. PubMed ID: 19168378 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Silva MA; Wolf U; Heinicke F; Bumann A; Visser H; Hirsch E Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 May; 133(5):640.e1-5. PubMed ID: 18456133 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Ludlow JB; Davies-Ludlow LE; Brooks SL; Howerton WB Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2006 Jul; 35(4):219-26. PubMed ID: 16798915 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Cone beam computed tomography for dental and maxillofacial imaging: technique improvement and low-dose protocols. Feragalli B; Rampado O; Abate C; Macrì M; Festa F; Stromei F; Caputi S; Guglielmi G Radiol Med; 2017 Aug; 122(8):581-588. PubMed ID: 28365888 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Dosimetry and image quality of four dental cone beam computed tomography scanners compared with multislice computed tomography scanners. Suomalainen A; Kiljunen T; Käser Y; Peltola J; Kortesniemi M Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Sep; 38(6):367-78. PubMed ID: 19700530 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Comparative dosimetry of dental cone-beam computed tomography and multi-slice computed tomography for oral and maxillofacial radiology]. Qu XM; Li G; Zhang ZY; Ma XC Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2011 Oct; 46(10):595-9. PubMed ID: 22321628 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Cross-sectional imaging in dentomaxillofacial diagnostics: dose comparison of dental MSCT and NewTom 9000 DVT]. Coppenrath E; Draenert F; Lechel U; Veit R; Meindl T; Reiser M; Mueller-Lisse U Rofo; 2008 May; 180(5):396-401. PubMed ID: 18543414 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Absorbed doses for patients undergoing panoramic radiography, cephalometric radiography and CBCT. Wrzesień M; Olszewski J Int J Occup Med Environ Health; 2017 Jul; 30(5):705-713. PubMed ID: 28584324 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Roberts JA; Drage NA; Davies J; Thomas DW Br J Radiol; 2009 Jan; 82(973):35-40. PubMed ID: 18852212 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Reproducibility of three-dimensional cephalometric landmarks in cone-beam and low-dose computed tomography. Olszewski R; Frison L; Wisniewski M; Denis JM; Vynckier S; Cosnard G; Zech F; Reychler H Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Jan; 17(1):285-92. PubMed ID: 22350037 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. [Radiation exposure and 3 dimensional imaging options of SIREMOBIL Iso-C(3D) for planning surgical dental interventions]. Heiland M; Schulze D; Flinzberg S; Thurmann H; Rother U; Schmelzle R Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir; 2004 Feb; 8(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 14991419 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]