215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16104978)
1. A laboratory comparison of three imaging systems for image quality and radiation exposure characteristics.
Bhaskaran V; Qualtrough AJ; Rushton VE; Worthington HV; Horner K
Int Endod J; 2005 Sep; 38(9):645-52. PubMed ID: 16104978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. An ex vivo comparison of conventional and digital radiography for perceived image quality of root fillings.
Akdeniz BG; Soğur E
Int Endod J; 2005 Jun; 38(6):397-401. PubMed ID: 15910475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Intraoral radiology in general dental practices - a comparison of digital and film-based X-ray systems with regard to radiation protection and dose reduction.
Anissi HD; Geibel MA
Rofo; 2014 Aug; 186(8):762-7. PubMed ID: 24648236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Subjective image quality of solid-state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intra-oral radiography.
Borg E; Attaelmanan A; Gröndahl HG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Mar; 29(2):70-5. PubMed ID: 10808218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Imaging of root canal fillings: a comparison of subjective image quality between limited cone-beam CT, storage phosphor and film radiography.
Soğur E; Baksi BG; Gröndahl HG
Int Endod J; 2007 Mar; 40(3):179-85. PubMed ID: 17305694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Intra-oral computed radiography--an in vitro evaluation.
Lim KF; Loh EE; Hong YH
J Dent; 1996 Sep; 24(5):359-64. PubMed ID: 8916652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Two- and three-dimensional imaging modalities for the detection of caries. A comparison between film, digital radiography and tuned aperture computed tomography (TACT).
Abreu Júnior M; Tyndall DA; Platin E; Ludlow JB; Phillips C
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 May; 28(3):152-7. PubMed ID: 10740469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Influence of tube potential setting and dose on the visibility of lesions in intraoral radiography.
Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Reinert S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Feb; 36(2):75-9. PubMed ID: 17403883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Image quality of two solid-state and three photostimulable phosphor plate digital panoramic systems, and treatment planning of mandibular third molar removal.
Benediktsdottir IS; Hintze H; Petersen JK; Wenzel A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Jan; 32(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 12820852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. The dynamic range of digital radiographic systems: dose reduction or risk of overexposure?
Berkhout WE; Beuger DA; Sanderink GC; van der Stelt PF
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 15140814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effects of imaging system and exposure on accurate detection of the second mesio-buccal canal in maxillary molar teeth.
Ramamurthy R; Scheetz JP; Clark SJ; Farman AG
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2006 Dec; 102(6):796-802. PubMed ID: 17138184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Radiopacity of resin-based materials measured in film radiographs and storage phosphor plate (Digora).
Sabbagh J; Vreven J; Leloup G
Oper Dent; 2004; 29(6):677-84. PubMed ID: 15646224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
