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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2052898)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Noise in subtraction images made from pairs of intraoral radiographs: a comparison between four methods of geometric alignment.
    Kozakiewicz M; Bogusiak K; Hanclik M; Denkowski M; Arkuszewski P
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Jan; 37(1):40-6. PubMed ID: 18195254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Efficacy of a new software in eliminating the angulation errors in digital subtraction radiography.
    Güneri P; Göğüş S; Tuğsel Z; Boyacioğlu H
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Dec; 36(8):484-9. PubMed ID: 18033945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effect of manual compared with reference point superimposition on image quality in digital subtraction radiography.
    Wenzel A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1989 Nov; 18(4):145-50. PubMed ID: 2701173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Computer-assisted densitometric image analysis of digital subtraction images: in vivo error of the method and effect of thresholding.
    Brägger U; Bürgin W; Fourmousis I; Schmid G; Schild U; Lang NP
    J Periodontol; 1998 Sep; 69(9):967-74. PubMed ID: 9776024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Digital image processing. I. Evaluation of gray level correction methods in vitro.
    Fourmousis I; Brägger U; Bürgin W; Tonetti M; Lang NP
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 1994 Mar; 5(1):37-47. PubMed ID: 8038343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Assessment of three methods of geometric image reconstruction for digital subtraction radiography.
    Queiroz PM; Oliveira ML; Tanaka JL; Soares MG; Haiter-Neto F; Ono E
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(7):20160120. PubMed ID: 27376702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Calibration errors in digital subtraction radiography.
    Webber RL; Ruttimann UE; Heaven TJ
    J Periodontal Res; 1990 Sep; 25(5):268-75. PubMed ID: 2145412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of logarithmic contrast enhancement on subtraction images.
    Versteeg KH; van der Stelt PF
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1995 Oct; 80(4):479-86. PubMed ID: 8521113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Novel display technique for reference images for visibility of temporal change on radiographs--color digital summation radiography.
    Ogata Y; Naito H; Azuma H; Toyota H; Ueguchi T; Matsumoto M; Tamura S; Nakamura sH; Johkoh T
    Radiat Med; 2006 Jan; 24(1):28-34. PubMed ID: 16715659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Contrast enhancement as an aid to interpretation in digital subtraction radiography.
    Reddy MS; Bruch JM; Jeffcoat MK; Williams RC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1991 Jun; 71(6):763-9. PubMed ID: 2062529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.