369 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20306863)
21. Scanning resolution and the detection of approximal caries.
Janhom A; van Ginkel FC; van Amerongen JP; van der Stelt PF
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 May; 30(3):166-71. PubMed ID: 11420630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Detection of artificial occlusal caries in a phosphor imaging plate system with two types of LCD monitors versus three different films.
Ilgüy M; Dinçer S; Ilgüy D; Bayirli G
J Digit Imaging; 2009 Jun; 22(3):242-9. PubMed ID: 18949518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The effect of image enhancements and dual observers on proximal caries detection.
Gray BM; Mol A; Zandona A; Tyndall D
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2017 Apr; 123(4):e133-e139. PubMed ID: 28283097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Comparison of diagnostic performance on approximal caries detection among Swedish and Chinese senior dental students using analogue and digital radiographs.
Minston W; Li G; Wennberg R; Näsström K; Shi XQ
Swed Dent J; 2013; 37(2):79-85. PubMed ID: 23957142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Diagnostic accuracy of intraoral film and direct digital images for detection of simulated recurrent decay.
Nair MK; Ludlow JB; May KN; Nair UP; Johnson MP; Close JM
Oper Dent; 2001; 26(3):223-30. PubMed ID: 11357563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Interproximal caries detection: how good are we?
Dykstra B
Dent Today; 2008 Apr; 27(4):144, 146-7. PubMed ID: 18497209
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Effect of different background lighting conditions on diagnostic performance of digital and film images.
Cederberg RA; Frederiksen NL; Benson BW; Shulman JD
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 Sep; 27(5):293-7. PubMed ID: 9879219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Mechanical defects in dental enamel vs. natural dental caries: observer differentiation using Ektaspeed Plus film.
Kang B-C ; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Goldsmith LJ
Caries Res; 1996; 30(2):156-62. PubMed ID: 8833141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Performance of RVGui sensor and Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film for proximal caries detection.
Abreu M; Mol A; Ludlow JB
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Mar; 91(3):381-5. PubMed ID: 11250640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The detection accuracies for proximal caries by cone-beam computerized tomography, film, and phosphor plates.
Zhang ZL; Qu XM; Li G; Zhang ZY; Ma XC
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2011 Jan; 111(1):103-8. PubMed ID: 20952219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Task-specific enhancement filters in storage phosphor images from the Vistascan system for detection of proximal caries lesions of known size.
Haiter-Neto F; Casanova MS; Frydenberg M; Wenzel A
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Jan; 107(1):116-21. PubMed ID: 19101494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. In vitro comparison of four different dental X-ray films and direct digital radiography for proximal caries detection.
Alkurt MT; Peker I; Bala O; Altunkaynak B
Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):504-9. PubMed ID: 17910228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. An in-vitro evaluation of Kodak Insight and Ektaspeed Plus film with a CMOS detector for natural proximal caries: ROC analysis.
Nair MK; Nair UP
Caries Res; 2001; 35(5):354-9. PubMed ID: 11641571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Detection of in vitro proximal caries in storage phosphor plate radiographs scanned with different resolutions.
Li G; Berkhout WE; Sanderink GC; Martins M; van der Stelt PF
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Sep; 37(6):325-9. PubMed ID: 18757717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A comparative study of different radiographic methods for detecting occlusal caries lesions.
Tarım Ertas E; Küçükyılmaz E; Ertaş H; Savaş S; Yırcalı Atıcı M
Caries Res; 2014; 48(6):566-74. PubMed ID: 25073755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Interaction between noise and file compression and its effect on the recognition of caries in digital imaging.
Janhom A; van der Stelt PF; van Ginkel FC
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):20-7. PubMed ID: 10654032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Ex vivo evaluation of new 2D and 3D dental radiographic technology for detecting caries.
Gaalaas L; Tyndall D; Mol A; Everett ET; Bangdiwala A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(3):20150281. PubMed ID: 26670605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Assessing the accuracy of caries diagnosis via radiograph. Film versus print.
Otis LL; Sherman RG
J Am Dent Assoc; 2005 Mar; 136(3):323-30. PubMed ID: 15819345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Comparison of clinician agreement during visualization of conventional and digitized bitewing radiographs.
Kimmes NS; Saini TS; Carroll LR
Gen Dent; 2006; 54(3):182-5. PubMed ID: 16776410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
