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 *

50 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16227479)

  • 1. Noise in subtraction images made from pairs of bitewing radiographs: a comparison between two subtraction programs.
    Haiter-Neto F; Wenzel A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2005 Nov; 34(6):357-61. PubMed ID: 16227479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Noise in subtraction images made from pairs of intraoral radiographs: a comparison between four methods of geometric alignment.
    Kozakiewicz M; Bogusiak K; Hanclik M; Denkowski M; Arkuszewski P
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Jan; 37(1):40-6. PubMed ID: 18195254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Assessment of three methods of geometric image reconstruction for digital subtraction radiography.
    Queiroz PM; Oliveira ML; Tanaka JL; Soares MG; Haiter-Neto F; Ono E
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(7):20160120. PubMed ID: 27376702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Efficacy of a new software in eliminating the angulation errors in digital subtraction radiography.
    Güneri P; Göğüş S; Tuğsel Z; Boyacioğlu H
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Dec; 36(8):484-9. PubMed ID: 18033945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A quantitative analysis of subtraction images based on bite-wing radiographs for simulated victim identification in forensic dentistry.
    Wenzel A; Andersen L
    J Forensic Odontostomatol; 1994 Jun; 12(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 9227082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Use of an internal standard in subtraction radiography to assess initial periodontal bone changes.
    Griffiths GS; Brägger U; Fourmousis I; Sterne JA
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Apr; 25(2):76-81. PubMed ID: 9446977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of peri-implant bone level assessment in digitized conventional radiographs and digital subtraction images.
    Bittar-Cortez JA; Passeri LA; de Almeida SM; Haiter-Neto F
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2006 Jul; 35(4):258-62. PubMed ID: 16798922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Limitations of the digital image subtraction technique in assessing alveolar bone crest changes due to misalignment errors during image capture.
    Benn DK
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1990 Aug; 19(3):97-104. PubMed ID: 2088789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Performance for obtaining maximal gain from a program for digital subtraction radiography.
    Aagaard E; Donslund C; Wenzel A; Sewerin I
    Scand J Dent Res; 1991 Apr; 99(2):166-72. PubMed ID: 2052898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Clinical efficacy of a new software developed for dental digital subtraction radiography.
    Güneri P; Gögüs S; Tuğsel Z; Ozturk A; Gungor C; Boyacioğlu H
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2006 Nov; 35(6):417-21. PubMed ID: 17082332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Individual identification by means of conventional bitewing film and subtraction radiography.
    Andersen L; Wenzel A
    Forensic Sci Int; 1995 Mar; 72(1):55-64. PubMed ID: 7705736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A retrospective study of digital subtraction technique to detect sclerotic changes in alveolar bone on intraoral radiographs of bisphosphonate-treated patients.
    Zaman MU; Nakamoto T; Tanimoto K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(10):20130242. PubMed ID: 24170801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Sources of noise in digital subtraction radiography.
    Wenzel A; Sewerin I
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1991 Apr; 71(4):503-8. PubMed ID: 2052339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Image homogeneity and recording reproducibility with 2 techniques for serial intra-oral radiography.
    Sander L; Wenzel A; Hintze H; Karring T
    J Periodontol; 1996 Dec; 67(12):1288-91. PubMed ID: 8997675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Sensor noise in direct digital imaging (the RadioVisioGraphy, Sens-a-Ray, and Visualix/Vixa systems) evaluated by subtraction radiography.
    Wenzel A
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Jan; 77(1):70-4. PubMed ID: 8108102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. ROI-based image registration for digital subtraction radiography.
    Yi WJ; Heo MS; Lee SS; Choi SC; Huh KH
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2006 Apr; 101(4):523-9. PubMed ID: 16545718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A new method for the automated alignment of dental radiographs for digital subtraction radiography.
    Yoon DC
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 10654031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of a dental subtraction radiography system.
    Ellwood RP; Davies RM; Worthington HV
    J Periodontal Res; 1997 Feb; 32(2):241-8. PubMed ID: 9089491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effect of manual compared with reference point superimposition on image quality in digital subtraction radiography.
    Wenzel A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1989 Nov; 18(4):145-50. PubMed ID: 2701173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How many times can we use a phosphor plate? A preliminary study.
    Ergün S; Güneri P; Ilgüy D; Ilgüy M; Boyacioglu H
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Jan; 38(1):42-7. PubMed ID: 19114423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.