144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19121963)
1. Patient discomfort and retakes in periapical examination of mandibular third molars using digital receptors and film.
Matzen LH; Christensen J; Wenzel A
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Apr; 107(4):566-72. PubMed ID: 19121963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparative evaluation of film and digital panoramic radiographs in the assessment of position and morphology of impacted mandibular third molars.
Mahesh MS; Mahima VG; Patil K
Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(2):219-24. PubMed ID: 21891889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Accuracy of scanography using storage phosphor plate systems and film for assessment of mandibular third molars.
Matzen LH; Christensen J; Wenzel A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2011 Jul; 40(5):306-9. PubMed ID: 21697156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Radiographic methods used before removal of mandibular third molars among randomly selected general dental clinics.
Matzen LH; Petersen LB; Wenzel A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(4):20150226. PubMed ID: 26943178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accuracy of digital and film panoramic radiographs for assessment of position and morphology of mandibular third molars and prevalence of dental anomalies and pathologies.
Benediktsdottir IS; Hintze H; Petersen JK; Wenzel A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Mar; 32(2):109-15. PubMed ID: 12775665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Patient comfort in periapical examination using digital receptors.
Gonçalves A; Wiezel VG; Gonçalves M; Hebling J; Sannomiya EK
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Oct; 38(7):484-8. PubMed ID: 19767521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Correlation of darkening of impacted mandibular third molar root on digital panoramic images with cone beam computed tomography findings.
Tantanapornkul W; Okochi K; Bhakdinaronk A; Ohbayashi N; Kurabayashi T
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Jan; 38(1):11-6. PubMed ID: 19114418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of orthopantomographs and conventional tomography images for assessing the relationship between impacted lower third molars and the mandibular canal.
de Melo Albert DG; Gomes AC; do Egito Vasconcelos BC; de Oliveira e Silva ED; Holanda GZ
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Jul; 64(7):1030-7. PubMed ID: 16781335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison between intraoral indirect and conventional film-based imaging for the detection of dental root fractures: an ex vivo study.
Shintaku WH; Venturin JS; Noujeim M; Dove SB
Dent Traumatol; 2013 Dec; 29(6):445-9. PubMed ID: 23566073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Accuracy of digital panoramic images displayed on monitor, glossy paper, and film for assessment of mandibular third molars.
Benediktsdóttir IS; Wenzel A
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2004 Aug; 98(2):217-22. PubMed ID: 15316548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Bitewing examination with four digital receptors.
Bahrami G; Hagstrøm C; Wenzel A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Sep; 32(5):317-21. PubMed ID: 14709607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of a new radiographic technique: outcome following removal of mandibular third molars.
Wenzel A; Aagaard E; Sindet-Pedersen S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 Sep; 27(5):264-9. PubMed ID: 9879214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [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]
15. The use of 3-dimensional reconstructions to evaluate the anatomic relationship of the mandibular canal and impacted mandibular third molars.
Friedland B; Donoff B; Dodson TB
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2008 Aug; 66(8):1678-85. PubMed ID: 18634957
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of panoramic image quality between a digital radiography storage phosphor system and a film-based system.
Parissis N; Angelopoulos C; Mantegari S; Karamanis S; Masood F; Tsirlis A
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Jan; 11(1):E009-16. PubMed ID: 20098961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Reliability of CBCT and other radiographic methods in preoperative evaluation of lower third molars.
Suomalainen A; Ventä I; Mattila M; Turtola L; Vehmas T; Peltola JS
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Feb; 109(2):276-84. PubMed ID: 20123411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Conventional cross-sectional tomographic evaluation of mandibular third molars.
Kaeppler G
Quintessence Int; 2000 Jan; 31(1):49-56. PubMed ID: 11203906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Evaluating impacted molars: augmenting traditional imaging studies.
Friedlander AH; Yueh R
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Aug; 67(8):1776-7. PubMed ID: 19615600
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
