183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19548931)
1. A comparative study of image quality and radiation exposure for dental radiographs produced using a charge-coupled device and a phosphor plate system.
Farrier SL; Drage NA; Newcombe RG; Hayes SJ; Dummer PM
Int Endod J; 2009 Oct; 42(10):900-7. PubMed ID: 19548931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Subjective image quality of solid-state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intra-oral radiography.
Borg E; Attaelmanan A; Gröndahl HG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Mar; 29(2):70-5. PubMed ID: 10808218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of Efficiency and Image Quality of Photostimulable Phosphor Plate and Charge-Coupled Device Receptors in Dental Radiography.
Zhang W; Huynh C; Jadhav A; Pinales J; Arvizu L; Tsai J; Flores N
J Dent Educ; 2019 Oct; 83(10):1205-1212. PubMed ID: 31235501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Observer performance based on marginal bone tissue visibility in Scanora panoramic radiography and posterior bitewing radiography.
Ivanauskaite D; Lindh C; Rohlin M
Stomatologija; 2008; 10(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 18493164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparative study of two digital radiographic storage phosphor systems.
Oliveira AE; de Almeida SM; Paganini GA; Haiter Neto F; Bóscolo FN
Braz Dent J; 2000; 11(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 11210259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. On the dynamic range of different X-ray photon detectors in intra-oral radiography. A comparison of image quality in film, charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems.
Borg E; Gröndahl HG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Apr; 25(2):82-8. PubMed ID: 9446978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of complementary metal oxide semiconductor and charge-coupled device intraoral X-ray detectors using subjective image quality.
Kitagawa H; Scheetz JP; Farman AG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):408-11. PubMed ID: 15070845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparative evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of film and digital sensors for detection of simulated periapical lesions.
Wallace JA; Nair MK; Colaco MF; Kapa SF
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Jul; 92(1):93-7. PubMed ID: 11458252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Can adaptive post-processing of storage phosphor plate panoramic radiographs provide better image quality? A comparison of anatomical image quality of panoramic radiographs before and after adaptive processing.
Svenson B; Båth M; Karlsson R
Acta Odontol Scand; 2019 Jul; 77(5):328-333. PubMed ID: 30623704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A comprehensive in vitro study of image accuracy and quality for periodontal diagnosis. Part 1: the influence of X-ray generator on periodontal measurements using conventional and digital receptors.
Vandenberghe B; Corpas L; Bosmans H; Yang J; Jacobs R
Clin Oral Investig; 2011 Aug; 15(4):537-49. PubMed ID: 20443035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of technique errors of intraoral radiographs taken on film v photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plates.
Zhang W; Huynh CP; Abramovitch K; Leon IL; Arvizu L
Tex Dent J; 2012 Jun; 129(6):589-96. PubMed ID: 22866414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of bitewing, periapical, unfiltered and filtered digital panoramic images for approximal caries detection in posterior teeth.
Akarslan ZZ; Akdevelioğlu M; Güngör K; Erten H
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Dec; 37(8):458-63. PubMed ID: 19033431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Image quality in digital radiographic systems.
de Almeida SM; de Oliveira AE; Ferreira RI; Bóscolo FN
Braz Dent J; 2003; 14(2):136-41. PubMed ID: 12964659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Charge-coupled device panoramic radiography: effect of beam energy on radiation exposure.
Farman TT; Farman AG; Kelly MS; Firriolo FJ; Yancey JM; Stewart AV
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 Jan; 27(1):36-40. PubMed ID: 9482021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The dynamic range of digital radiographic systems: dose reduction or risk of overexposure?
Berkhout WE; Beuger DA; Sanderink GC; van der Stelt PF
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 15140814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance evaluation and testing of digital intra-oral radiographic systems.
Doyle P; Finney L
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):313-7. PubMed ID: 16461488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography for assessment of the periapical bone defect 1 week and 12 months after root-end resection.
Christiansen R; Kirkevang LL; Gotfredsen E; Wenzel A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Dec; 38(8):531-6. PubMed ID: 20026710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The effect of anatomical noise on perception of low contrast in intra-oral radiographs: an in vitro study.
Olsson L; Nilsson M; Svenson B; Hellén-Halme K
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(4):20150402. PubMed ID: 26891747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
