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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15484636)

  • 1. Reliability of CCD and CMOS (APS) digital sensors compared with D and E-plus-speed films in the detection of dental pathology: an in vitro study.
    Tsau JN; Mupparapu M
    Penn Dent J (Phila); 2001; 101():10-1. PubMed ID: 15484636
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. In vitro comparison of Kodak Ultra-speed, Ektaspeed, and Ektaspeed Plus, and Agfa M2 Comfort dental x-ray films for the detection of caries.
    Hintze H; Christoffersen L; Wenzel A
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1996 Feb; 81(2):240-4. PubMed ID: 8665322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of digital imaging by using CCD and CMOS-APS sensors with E-speed film in the detection of periapical bony lesions.
    Paurazas SB; Geist JR; Pink FE; Hoen MM; Steiman HR
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2000 Mar; 89(3):356-62. PubMed ID: 10710463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of direct digital and conventional radiography for the detection of proximal surface caries in the mixed dentition.
    Uprichard KK; Potter BJ; Russell CM; Schafer TE; Adair S; Weller RN
    Pediatr Dent; 2000; 22(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 10730280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Radiographic detection of approximal caries: a comparison of dental films and digital imaging systems.
    Syriopoulos K; Sanderink GC; Velders XL; van der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Sep; 29(5):312-8. PubMed ID: 10980568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Standards for intraoral radiographic imaging.
    Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Sep; 29(5):257-9. PubMed ID: 10980558
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparative evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of film and digital sensors for detection of simulated periapical lesions.
    Wallace JA; Nair MK; Colaco MF; Kapa SF
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Jul; 92(1):93-7. PubMed ID: 11458252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A subjective study of dental diagnostic utility comparing xeroradiography and film radiography.
    Gratt BM; White SC; Sickles EA
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Nov; 68(5):653-60. PubMed ID: 2812719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. In vitro comparison of four different dental X-ray films and direct digital radiography for proximal caries detection.
    Alkurt MT; Peker I; Bala O; Altunkaynak B
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):504-9. PubMed ID: 17910228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [A comparative study of analog and digital intraoral x-ray image detector systems].
    Blendl C; Stengel C; Zdunczyk S
    Rofo; 2000 Jun; 172(6):534-41. PubMed ID: 10916550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Are conventional dental x-ray films a thing of the past?].
    Sanderink GC
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1995 Dec; 102(12):496-8. PubMed ID: 11836821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An evaluation of the Sens-A-Ray digital dental imaging system.
    McDonnell D; Price C
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1993 Aug; 22(3):121-6. PubMed ID: 8299829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Optical densities of dental resin composites: a comparison of CCD, storage phosphor, and Ektaspeed plus radiographic film.
    Farman TT; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Goldsmith LJ
    Gen Dent; 1996; 44(6):532-7. PubMed ID: 9515395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Current practice in conventional and digital intraoral radiography: problems and solutions.
    Fuhrmann AW
    Int J Comput Dent; 2006 Jan; 9(1):61-8. PubMed ID: 16608054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. In vitro carious lesion detection on D-, E-, and F-speed radiographic films.
    Schulze RK; Nackat D; D'hoedt B
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2004 Apr; 97(4):529-34. PubMed ID: 15088040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.