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.
388 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17466887)
61. [Digital roentgenographic systems based on photostimulated screens and their comparison with roentgenographic screen-film sets]. Gorelik FG; Stankevich NE Med Tekh; 2006; (5):10-3. PubMed ID: 17133936 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
62. An image plate system for digital intra-oral radiography. Gröndahl HG; Wenzel A; Borg E; Tammisalo E Dent Update; 1996 Oct; 23(8):334-7. PubMed ID: 9452625 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. Fluoroscopic image quality in the film and filmless eras: a standardized comparison performed in coronary interventional facilities. Laskey W; Wondrow M; Chambers C Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2003 Mar; 58(3):383-90. PubMed ID: 12594708 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
64. 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]
65. Image distortion and magnification of 3 digital CCD cephalometric systems. Chadwick JW; Prentice RN; Major PW; Lam EW Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Jan; 107(1):105-12. PubMed ID: 19101493 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. Differences in aluminum equivalent values of endodontic sealers: conventional versus digital radiography. Baksi BG; Sen BH; Eyuboglu TF J Endod; 2008 Sep; 34(9):1101-4. PubMed ID: 18718374 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
67. Digital radiography: image quality and radiation dose. Seibert JA Health Phys; 2008 Nov; 95(5):586-98. PubMed ID: 18849693 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. 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]
70. 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]
71. A clinical trial of the Nomad portable X-ray unit. Brooks SL; McMinn WE; Benavides E J Mich Dent Assoc; 2009 Feb; 91(2):54-8. PubMed ID: 19288662 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. [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]
73. Quantitative assessment of a new dental imaging system. Walker A; Horner K; Czajka J; Shearer AC; Wilson NH Br J Radiol; 1991 Jun; 64(762):529-36. PubMed ID: 2070184 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. Detection of experimentally induced root fractures on digital and conventional radiographs: an in vitro study. Kondylidou-Sidira A; Fardi A; Giannopoulou M; Parisis N Odontology; 2013 Jan; 101(1):89-95. PubMed ID: 22249846 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. Implant image quality in dental radiographs recorded using a customized imaging guide or a standard film holder. Schropp L; Stavropoulos A; Spin-Neto R; Wenzel A Clin Oral Implants Res; 2012 Jan; 23(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 21488967 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]