212 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18033949)
1. Factors influencing the absorbed dose in intraoral radiography.
Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Herz K; Reinert S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Dec; 36(8):506-13. PubMed ID: 18033949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Possibilities of dose reduction in lateral cephalometric radiographs and its effects on clinical diagnostics.
Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Reinert S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Jan; 36(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 17329587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Radiation dose reduction in direct digital panoramic radiography.
Gavala S; Donta C; Tsiklakis K; Boziari A; Kamenopoulou V; Stamatakis HC
Eur J Radiol; 2009 Jul; 71(1):42-8. PubMed ID: 18448296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of varying X-ray tube voltage and additional filtration on image quality and patient dose in digital radiography system.
E A; A Y; T O
Appl Radiat Isot; 2023 Sep; 199():110893. PubMed ID: 37321050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Estimation of absorbed organ doses and effective dose based on body mass index in digital radiography.
Kim H; Park M; Park S; Jeong H; Kim J; Kim Y
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Jan; 153(1):92-9. PubMed ID: 22772453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Investigation of dose reduction in neonatal radiography using specially designed phantoms and LiF:Mg,Cu,P TLDs.
Duggan L; Warren-Forward H; Smith T; Kron T
Br J Radiol; 2003 Apr; 76(904):232-7. PubMed ID: 12711642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The effect of beam tube potential variation on gonad dose to patients during chest radiography investigated using high sensitivity LiF:Mg,Cu,P thermoluminescent dosemeters.
Fung KK; Gilboy WB
Br J Radiol; 2001 Apr; 74(880):358-67. PubMed ID: 11387155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus storage phosphor-based computed radiography: contrast-detail phantom study at different tube voltages and detector entrance doses.
Hamer OW; Völk M; Zorger Z; Feuerbach S; Strotzer M
Invest Radiol; 2003 Apr; 38(4):212-20. PubMed ID: 12649645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Diagnostic accuracy of in vitro panoramic radiographs depending on the exposure.
Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Reinert S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Feb; 36(2):68-74. PubMed ID: 17403882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape.
Siegel MJ; Schmidt B; Bradley D; Suess C; Hildebolt C
Radiology; 2004 Nov; 233(2):515-22. PubMed ID: 15358847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Effective dose in diagnostic radiology as a function of x-ray beam filtration for a constant exit dose and constant film density.
Behrman RH; Yasuda G
Med Phys; 1998 May; 25(5):780-90. PubMed ID: 9608491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Dose measurements comparing conventional and digital panoramic radiography].
Visser H; Hermann KP; Bredemeier S; Köhler B
Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir; 2000 Jul; 4(4):213-6. PubMed ID: 10994319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Efficacy of lead foil for reducing doses in the head and neck: a simulation study using digital intraoral systems.
Nejaim Y; Silva AI; Brasil DM; Vasconcelos KF; Haiter Neto F; Boscolo FN
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(8):20150065. PubMed ID: 26084474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation.
Ludlow JB; Davies-Ludlow LE; White SC
J Am Dent Assoc; 2008 Sep; 139(9):1237-43. PubMed ID: 18762634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A phantom approach to find the optimal technical parameters for plain chest radiography.
Vassileva J
Br J Radiol; 2004 Aug; 77(920):648-53. PubMed ID: 15326041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Optimum exposure ranges for computed dental radiography.
Hayakawa Y; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Kuroyanagi K; Rumack PM; Schick DB
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Apr; 25(2):71-5. PubMed ID: 9446976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Organ and effective doses in newborn patients during helical multislice computed tomography examination.
Staton RJ; Lee C; Lee C; Williams MD; Hintenlang DE; Arreola MM; Williams JL; Bolch WE
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Oct; 51(20):5151-66. PubMed ID: 17019030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Automatic exposure control in pediatric and adult computed tomography examinations: can we estimate organ and effective dose from mean MAS reduction?
Papadakis AE; Perisinakis K; Oikonomou I; Damilakis J
Invest Radiol; 2011 Oct; 46(10):654-62. PubMed ID: 21673583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
