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 *

205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19492636)

  • 1. Comparison of cone-beam imaging with orthopantomography and computerized tomography for assessment in presurgical implant dentistry.
    Dreiseidler T; Mischkowski RA; Neugebauer J; Ritter L; Zöller JE
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(2):216-25. PubMed ID: 19492636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of tube current on cone-beam computerized tomography image quality for presurgical implant planning in vitro.
    Sur J; Seki K; Koizumi H; Nakajima K; Okano T
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Sep; 110(3):e29-33. PubMed ID: 20598589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of digital panoramic radiography versus cone beam computerized tomography for measuring alveolar bone.
    Tang Z; Liu X; Chen K
    Head Face Med; 2017 Feb; 13(1):2. PubMed ID: 28228135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reliability of Orthopantomography and Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Presurgical Implant Planning: A Clinical Study.
    Sahota J; Bhatia A; Gupta M; Singh V; Soni J; Soni R
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2017 Aug; 18(8):665-669. PubMed ID: 28816186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison between digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the identification of the mandibular canal as part of presurgical dental implant assessment.
    Angelopoulos C; Thomas SL; Hechler S; Parissis N; Hlavacek M
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2008 Oct; 66(10):2130-5. PubMed ID: 18848113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of Osseointegration in Implants using Digital Orthopantomogram and Cone Beam Computed Tomography.
    Chopra A; Mhapuskar AA; Marathe S; Nisa SU; Thopte S; Saddiwal R
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2016 Nov; 17(11):953-957. PubMed ID: 27965508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Sensitivity and specificity of radiographic methods for predicting insertion torque of dental implants.
    Cortes AR; Eimar H; Barbosa Jde S; Costa C; Arita ES; Tamimi F
    J Periodontol; 2015 May; 86(5):646-55. PubMed ID: 25594426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Preoperative assessment of the mandibular canal in implant surgery: comparison of rotational panoramic radiography (OPG), computed tomography (CT) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for preoperative assessment in implant surgery.
    Pertl L; Gashi-Cenkoglu B; Reichmann J; Jakse N; Pertl C
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2013; 6(1):73-80. PubMed ID: 23513204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparative study between currently used methods and Small Volume-Cone Beam Tomography for surgical placement of mini implants.
    Landin M; Jadhav A; Yadav S; Tadinada A
    Angle Orthod; 2015 May; 85(3):446-53. PubMed ID: 25343688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessment of correlation between computerized tomography values of the bone and cutting torque values at implant placement: a clinical study.
    Ikumi N; Tsutsumi S
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2005; 20(2):253-60. PubMed ID: 15839119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Morphometric analysis of mandibular trabecular bone using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study.
    Naitoh M; Aimiya H; Hirukawa A; Ariji E
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(6):1093-8. PubMed ID: 21197484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Cone Beam Computed Tomography for the Dental Implant Patient.
    Klokkevold PR
    J Calif Dent Assoc; 2015 Sep; 43(9):521-30. PubMed ID: 26820009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography.
    Naitoh M; Hirukawa A; Katsumata A; Ariji E
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2009 May; 20(5):503-6. PubMed ID: 19250241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Effect of Implant-Induced Artifacts on Interpreting Adjacent Bone Structures on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans.
    Sheridan RA; Chiang YC; Decker AM; Sutthiboonyapan P; Chan HL; Wang HL
    Implant Dent; 2018 Feb; 27(1):10-14. PubMed ID: 29095787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reliability of implant placement after virtual planning of implant positions using cone beam CT data and surgical (guide) templates.
    Nickenig HJ; Eitner S
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2007; 35(4-5):207-11. PubMed ID: 17576068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Use of digital panoramic radiology in presurgical implant treatment planning to accurately assess bone density.
    Chugh NK; Bhattacharyya J; Das S; Ghosh S; Dutta K; Goel P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Aug; 116(2):200-205.e1. PubMed ID: 27038528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Three-dimensional computer tomography (CT) in the evaluation of placement for dental implants.
    Lee CY
    Hawaii Dent J; 1996; 27(3):26-9. PubMed ID: 11908285
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessing the length of the mandibular ramus and the condylar process: a comparison of OPG, CBCT, CT, MRI, and lateral cephalometric measurements.
    Markic G; Müller L; Patcas R; Roos M; Lochbühler N; Peltomäki T; Karlo CA; Ullrich O; Kellenberger CJ
    Eur J Orthod; 2015 Feb; 37(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 25154725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison between cone-beam and multislice computed tomography depicting mandibular neurovascular canal structures.
    Naitoh M; Nakahara K; Suenaga Y; Gotoh K; Kondo S; Ariji E
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Jan; 109(1):e25-31. PubMed ID: 20123365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An in vitro comparison of subjective image quality of panoramic views acquired via 2D or 3D imaging.
    Pittayapat P; Galiti D; Huang Y; Dreesen K; Schreurs M; Souza PC; Rubira-Bullen IR; Westphalen FH; Pauwels R; Kalema G; Willems G; Jacobs R
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Jan; 17(1):293-300. PubMed ID: 22382448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.