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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2052339)

  • 1. Sources of noise in digital subtraction radiography.
    Wenzel A; Sewerin I
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1991 Apr; 71(4):503-8. PubMed ID: 2052339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Performance for obtaining maximal gain from a program for digital subtraction radiography.
    Aagaard E; Donslund C; Wenzel A; Sewerin I
    Scand J Dent Res; 1991 Apr; 99(2):166-72. PubMed ID: 2052898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison between subtraction radiography and conventional radiographic interpretation during long-term evaluation of periodontal therapy in Class II furcation defects.
    Cury PR; Araujo NS; Bowie J; Sallum EA; Jeffcoat MK
    J Periodontol; 2004 Aug; 75(8):1145-9. PubMed ID: 15455744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sensor noise in direct digital imaging (the RadioVisioGraphy, Sens-a-Ray, and Visualix/Vixa systems) evaluated by subtraction radiography.
    Wenzel A
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Jan; 77(1):70-4. PubMed ID: 8108102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A quantitative analysis of subtraction images based on bite-wing radiographs for simulated victim identification in forensic dentistry.
    Wenzel A; Andersen L
    J Forensic Odontostomatol; 1994 Jun; 12(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 9227082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Image homogeneity and recording reproducibility with 2 techniques for serial intra-oral radiography.
    Sander L; Wenzel A; Hintze H; Karring T
    J Periodontol; 1996 Dec; 67(12):1288-91. PubMed ID: 8997675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Personal computer equipment for dental digital subtraction radiography vs. industrial computer equipment and conventional radiography.
    Möystad A; Svanaes DB; Larheim TA
    Scand J Dent Res; 1992 Apr; 100(2):117-22. PubMed ID: 1574677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Film-less digital x-ray image processing--new prospects with the RadioVisioGraphy equipment].
    Mairgünther RH
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 1994; 104(1):31-4. PubMed ID: 8108689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. In vivo determination of radiographic projection errors produced by a novel filmholder and an x-ray beam manipulator.
    Zappa U; Simona C; Graf H; van Aken J
    J Periodontol; 1991 Nov; 62(11):674-83. PubMed ID: 1753320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A new method for the automated alignment of dental radiographs for digital subtraction radiography.
    Yoon DC
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 10654031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effect of in-vivo-occurring errors in the reproducibility of radiographs on the use of the subtraction technique.
    Janssen PT; van Palenstein Helderman WH; van Aken J
    J Clin Periodontol; 1989 Jan; 16(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 2644313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Influence of contrast enhancement and pseudocolor transformation on the diagnosis with digital subtraction images (DSI).
    Brägger U; Bürgin W; Marconi M; Häsler RU; Lang NP
    J Periodontal Res; 1994 Mar; 29(2):95-102. PubMed ID: 8158504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Computer-assisted subtraction radiography in periodontal diagnosis.
    Gröndahl K
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1987; 50():1-44. PubMed ID: 3321498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Noise analysis of a digital radiography system.
    Arnold BA; Scheibe PO
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1984 Mar; 142(3):609-13. PubMed ID: 6364749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of three contrast correction methods for digital subtraction in dental radiography: an in vitro study.
    Likar B; Pernus F
    Med Phys; 1997 Feb; 24(2):299-307. PubMed ID: 9048371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Quantitative evaluation of digital dental radiograph imaging systems.
    Hildebolt CF; Vannier MW; Pilgram TK; Shrout MK
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1990 Nov; 70(5):661-8. PubMed ID: 2234888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy and reproducibility of conventional radiographic assessment and subtraction radiography in detecting demineralization in occlusal surfaces.
    Ricketts DN; Ekstrand KR; Martignon S; Ellwood R; Alatsaris M; Nugent Z
    Caries Res; 2007; 41(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 17284913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessment of external root resorption using digital subtraction radiography.
    Kravitz LH; Tyndall DA; Bagnell CP; Dove SB
    J Endod; 1992 Jun; 18(6):275-84. PubMed ID: 1402585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison of two registration techniques for digital subtraction radiography.
    Dunn SM; van der Stelt PF; Ponce A; Fenesy K; Shah S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1993 May; 22(2):77-80. PubMed ID: 8375559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Noise in subtraction images made from pairs of bitewing radiographs: a comparison between two subtraction programs.
    Haiter-Neto F; Wenzel A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2005 Nov; 34(6):357-61. PubMed ID: 16227479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.