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 *

201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16798929)

  • 21. Densitometric evaluation of intraoral x-ray films: Ektaspeed versus Ultraspeed.
    Kaffe I; Littner MM; Kuspet ME
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1984 Mar; 57(3):338-42. PubMed ID: 6584823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Sensitometric evaluation of four dental X-ray films using five processing solutions.
    Syriopoulos K; Velders XL; Sanderink GC; van Ginkel FC; van der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Mar; 28(2):73-9. PubMed ID: 10522195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A survey of radiographic techniques and equipment used by a sample of general dental practitioners.
    Bohay RN; Kogon SL; Stephens RG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Dec; 78(6):806-10. PubMed ID: 7898915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Radiation exposure to children in intraoral dental radiology.
    Looe HK; Pfaffenberger A; Chofor N; Eenboom F; Sering M; Rühmann A; Poplawski A; Willborn K; Poppe B
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2006; 121(4):461-5. PubMed ID: 16782982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Characteristics of Kodak Insight, an F-speed intraoral film.
    Ludlow JB; Platin E; Mol A
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Jan; 91(1):120-9. PubMed ID: 11174582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Sensitometric and image quality performance of "rapid" intraoral film processing techniques.
    Czajka J; Rushton VE; Shearer AC; Horner K
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Jan; 69(817):49-58. PubMed ID: 8785621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Does digital radiography increase the number of intraoral radiographs? A questionnaire study of Dutch dental practices.
    Berkhout WE; Sanderink GC; Van der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Mar; 32(2):124-7. PubMed ID: 12775667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Survey of dental radiographical practice in states of Punjab and Haryana in India.
    Sheikh S; Pallagatti S; Singla I; Gupta R; Aggarwal A; Singh R; Gupta D
    J Investig Clin Dent; 2014 Feb; 5(1):72-7. PubMed ID: 23233351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Dental radiography in New Zealand: digital versus film.
    Ting NA; Broadbent JM; Duncan WJ
    N Z Dent J; 2013 Sep; 109(3):107-14. PubMed ID: 24027973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Radiation dosage reduction in general dental practice using digital intraoral radiographic systems.
    Hayakawa Y; Shibuya H; Ota Y; Kuroyanagi K
    Bull Tokyo Dent Coll; 1997 Feb; 38(1):21-5. PubMed ID: 9566150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Evaluation of a new F speed dental X-ray film. The effect of processing solutions and a comparison with D and E speed films.
    Farman TT; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):41-5. PubMed ID: 10654035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Effects of developer exhaustion on the sensitometric properties of four dental films.
    Syriopoulos K; Velders XL; Sanderink GC; van Ginkel FC; van der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Mar; 28(2):80-8. PubMed ID: 10522196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Patient radiation dose management in dental facilities according to the X-ray focal distance and the image receptor type.
    Gonzalez L; Moro J
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Jul; 36(5):282-4. PubMed ID: 17586855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparative means of dose reduction in dental radiography.
    Rohlin M; White SC
    Curr Opin Dent; 1992 Jun; 2():1-9. PubMed ID: 1520917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Imaging: new versus traditional technological aids.
    Sanderink GC
    Int Dent J; 1993 Aug; 43(4):335-42. PubMed ID: 8276517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Changes in radiological protection and quality control in Spanish dental installations: 1996-2003.
    Alcaraz-Baños M; Parra-Pérez Mdel C; Armero-Barranco D; Velasco-Hidalgo F; Velasco-Hidalgo E
    Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal; 2009 Oct; 14(10):e499-505. PubMed ID: 19680217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Conversion coefficients for the estimation of effective doses in intraoral and panoramic dental radiology from dose-area product values.
    Looe HK; Eenboom F; Chofor N; Pfaffenberger A; Steinhoff M; Rühmann A; Poplawski A; Willborn K; Poppe B
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 131(3):365-73. PubMed ID: 18550517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [New film for intraoral radiography].
    Verdonschot EH; Duijsings JH
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 2001 Apr; 108(4):142-4. PubMed ID: 11383356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Is digital better in dental radiography?
    Zdesar U; Fortuna T; Valantic B; Skrk D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):138-9. PubMed ID: 18375462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.