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 *

213 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]
    of 11.