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 *

223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20100917)

  • 1. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography.
    Aras MH; Miloglu O; Barutcugil C; Kantarci M; Ozcan E; Harorli A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 Feb; 39(2):72-8. PubMed ID: 20100917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study.
    Javadrashid R; Fouladi DF; Golamian M; Hajalioghli P; Daghighi MH; Shahmorady Z; Niknejad MT
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(4):20140229. PubMed ID: 25426703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Visibility of foreign bodies in soft tissue in plain radiographs, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound. An in vitro study.
    Oikarinen KS; Nieminen TM; Mäkäräinen H; Pyhtinen J
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1993 Apr; 22(2):119-24. PubMed ID: 8320449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Detection of foreign bodies by spiral computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in maxillofacial regions.
    Kaviani F; Javad Rashid R; Shahmoradi Z; Gholamian M
    J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects; 2014; 8(3):166-71. PubMed ID: 25346836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Visibility of Different Intraorbital Foreign Bodies Using Plain Radiography, Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: An In Vitro Study.
    Javadrashid R; Golamian M; Shahrzad M; Hajalioghli P; Shahmorady Z; Fouladi DF; Sadrarhami S; Akhoundzadeh L
    Can Assoc Radiol J; 2017 May; 68(2):194-201. PubMed ID: 26899378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and ultrasonography with two types of probes in the detection of opaque and non-opaque foreign bodies.
    Demiralp KO; Orhan K; Kurşun-Çakmak EŞ; Gorurgoz C; Bayrak S
    Med Ultrason; 2018 Dec; 20(4):467-474. PubMed ID: 30534654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Computed tomography, ultrasonography and plain radiography in the detection of foreign bodies in pork muscle tissue.
    Torfing KF; Teisen HG; Skjødt T
    Rofo; 1988 Jul; 149(1):60-2. PubMed ID: 2840712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies by plain radiography, xerography, computed tomography, and ultrasonography.
    Ginsburg MJ; Ellis GL; Flom LL
    Ann Emerg Med; 1990 Jun; 19(6):701-3. PubMed ID: 2188542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparative Sensitivity Assessment of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Digital Radiography for detecting Foreign Bodies.
    Lari SS; Shokri A; Hosseinipanah SM; Rostami S; Sabounchi SS
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2016 Mar; 17(3):224-9. PubMed ID: 27207202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Do we really need plain and soft-tissue radiographies to detect radiolucent foreign bodies in the ED?
    Turkcuer I; Atilla R; Topacoglu H; Yanturali S; Kiyan S; Kabakci N; Bozkurt S; Cevik AA
    Am J Emerg Med; 2006 Nov; 24(7):763-8. PubMed ID: 17098094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Semi-quantitative scoring of imaging modalities in detecting soft tissue foreign bodies: an in vitro study.
    Alfuraih AM; Almutairi FN; Alotaibi SB; Alshmrani AA
    Acta Radiol; 2022 Apr; 63(4):474-480. PubMed ID: 33673754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy of radiography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing foreign bodies in the foot.
    Pattamapaspong N; Srisuwan T; Sivasomboon C; Nasuto M; Suwannahoy P; Settakorn J; Kraisarin J; Guglielmi G
    Radiol Med; 2013 Mar; 118(2):303-10. PubMed ID: 22744349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison between Computed Tomography and Ultrasonography in Detecting Foreign Bodies Regarding Their Composition and Depth: An In Vitro Study.
    Haghnegahdar A; Shakibafard A; Khosravifard N
    J Dent (Shiraz); 2016 Sep; 17(3):177-84. PubMed ID: 27602392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of soft-tissue foreign bodies: comparing conventional plain film radiography, computed radiography printed on film, and computed radiography displayed on a computer workstation.
    Reiner B; Siegel E; McLaurin T; Pomerantz S; Allman R; Hebel JR; Fritz S; Protopapas Z
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Jul; 167(1):141-4. PubMed ID: 8659358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Ultrasound versus radiography in the detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies.
    Manthey DE; Storrow AB; Milbourn JM; Wagner BJ
    Ann Emerg Med; 1996 Jul; 28(1):7-9. PubMed ID: 8669741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Detection of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region with spiral computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study.
    Abolvardi M; Akhlaghian M; Hamidi Shishvan H; Dastan F
    Imaging Sci Dent; 2020 Dec; 50(4):291-298. PubMed ID: 33409137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Radio opacity of various ENT foreign bodies in sheep's neck preparation.
    Manickavasagam J; Bateman N; Street I; Irune E; Brammer A
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2009 Oct; 266(10):1641-4. PubMed ID: 19052761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Use of plain radiography and computed tomography to identify fish bone foreign bodies.
    Lue AJ; Fang WD; Manolidis S
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2000 Oct; 123(4):435-8. PubMed ID: 11020181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Imaging foreign glass and wooden bodies of the extremities with CT and MR.
    Bodne D; Quinn SF; Cochran CF
    J Comput Assist Tomogr; 1988; 12(4):608-11. PubMed ID: 3392261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of Visibility of Foreign Bodies in the Maxillofacial Region: Comparison of Computed Tomography, Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
    Valizadeh S; Pouraliakbar H; Kiani L; Safi Y; Alibakhshi L
    Iran J Radiol; 2016 Oct; 13(4):e37265. PubMed ID: 27895878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.