292 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19272812)
1. Effect of bit depth and kVp of digital radiography for detection of subtle differences.
Heo MS; Choi DH; Benavides E; Huh KH; Yi WJ; Lee SS; Choi SC
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Aug; 108(2):278-83. PubMed ID: 19272812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Signal-to-noise ratios of 6 intraoral digital sensors.
Attaelmanan AG; Borg E; Gröndahl HG
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 May; 91(5):611-5. PubMed ID: 11346743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Correction for attenuation and visual response in digital radiography.
Welande U; Yoshiura K; Li G; Sällström P; McDavid WD
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Mar; 31(2):117-25. PubMed ID: 12076052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Forensic oral imaging quality of hand-held dental X-ray devices: comparison of two image receptors and two devices.
Pittayapat P; Thevissen P; Fieuws S; Jacobs R; Willems G
Forensic Sci Int; 2010 Jan; 194(1-3):20-7. PubMed ID: 19913377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Depiction of low-contrast detail in digital radiography: comparison of powder- and needle-structured storage phosphor systems.
Körner M; Treitl M; Schaetzing R; Pfeifer KJ; Reiser M; Wirth S
Invest Radiol; 2006 Jul; 41(7):593-9. PubMed ID: 16772853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of beam energy and filtration on the signal-to-noise ratio of the Dexis intraoral X-ray detector.
Kitagawa H; Farman AG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):21-4. PubMed ID: 15140818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Assessing the image quality of a CCD-based digital intraoral radiography system: application of perceptibility curve test.
Hayakawa Y; Kitagawa H; Wakoh M; Kuroyanagi K; Welander U
Bull Tokyo Dent Coll; 2000 Feb; 41(1):9-14. PubMed ID: 11212381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Conventional and predicted perceptibility curves for contrast-enhanced direct digital intraoral radiographs.
Yoshiura K; Welander U; Shi XQ; Li G; Kawazu T; Tatsumi M; Okamura K; McDavid WD; Kanda S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Jul; 30(4):219-25. PubMed ID: 11681484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. In vitro perception of low-contrast features in digital, film, and digitized dental radiographs: a receiver operating characteristic analysis.
Grassl U; Schulze RK
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2007 May; 103(5):694-701. PubMed ID: 17466887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. High kilovoltage digital exposure techniques and patient dosimetry.
Fauber TL; Cohen TF; Dempsey MC
Radiol Technol; 2011; 82(6):501-10. PubMed ID: 21771934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessments of the physical performance of 2 generations of 2 direct digital intraoral sensors.
Attaelmanan AG; Borg E; Gröndahl HG
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Oct; 88(4):517-23. PubMed ID: 10519766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effect of K-shell absorption edge filters on image quality in digital intraoral radiography.
Shibuya H; Nishikawa K; Kuroyanagi K
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2000 Sep; 90(3):377-84. PubMed ID: 10982962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [The measurement parameters in dental radiography: a comparison between traditional and digital technics].
Lazzerini F; Minorati D; Nessi R; Gagliani M; Uslenghi CM
Radiol Med; 1996 Apr; 91(4):364-9. PubMed ID: 8643845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comments on noise and resolution of the DenOptix radiography system.
Couture RA
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2003 Jun; 95(6):746-51. PubMed ID: 12789159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 1: phantom validity.
Yoshiura K; Kawazu T; Chikui T; Tatsumi M; Tokumori K; Tanaka T; Kanda S
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Jan; 87(1):115-22. PubMed ID: 9927090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The perceptibility curve test applied to direct digital dental radiography.
Yoshiura K; Stamatakis H; Shi XQ; Welander U; McDavid WD; Kristoffersen J; Tronje G
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 May; 27(3):131-5. PubMed ID: 9693524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after correction for attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response.
Li G; Welander U; Yoshiura K; Shi XQ; McDavid WD
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):372-8. PubMed ID: 15070839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Image-receptor performance: a comparison of Trophy RVG UI sensor and Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film.
Ludlow J; Mol A
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Jan; 91(1):109-19. PubMed ID: 11174581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Exposure variability and image quality in computed radiography.
Fauber TL
Radiol Technol; 2009; 80(3):209-15. PubMed ID: 19153197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
