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.
42. Position statement of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology on selection criteria for the use of radiology in dental implantology with emphasis on cone beam computed tomography. Tyndall DA; Price JB; Tetradis S; Ganz SD; Hildebolt C; Scarfe WC; Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2012 Jun; 113(6):817-26. PubMed ID: 22668710 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Cone-beam computed tomography in endodontics: are we there yet? Nesari R; Rossman LE; Kratchman SI Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2009; 30(6):312-4, 316, 318 passim; quiz 324, 334. PubMed ID: 19715008 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. A hidden agenda. Stoler KL N Y State Dent J; 2008 Jan; 74(1):8; author reply 8-9; discussion 9-10. PubMed ID: 18402372 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Bornstein MM; Scarfe WC; Vaughn VM; Jacobs R Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2014; 29 Suppl():55-77. PubMed ID: 24660190 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Cone-beam computed tomography: time for an evidence-based approach. Horner K Prim Dent J; 2013 Jan; 2(1):22-31. PubMed ID: 23717887 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Field of view. Farman AG Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Oct; 108(4):477-8. PubMed ID: 19451006 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. Influence of CBCT exposure conditions on radiation dose. Palomo JM; Rao PS; Hans MG Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2008 Jun; 105(6):773-82. PubMed ID: 18424119 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Doses, Benefits, Safety, and Risks in Oral and Maxillofacial Diagnostic Imaging. Lurie AG Health Phys; 2019 Feb; 116(2):163-169. PubMed ID: 30585958 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Application of cone-beam CT in the office setting. Thomas SL Dent Clin North Am; 2008 Oct; 52(4):753-9, vi. PubMed ID: 18805227 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. The current status of 3D imaging in dental practice. McNamara C; House K; Davies R; Barker CS; Chawla O; Sandy JR; Ireland AJ Dent Update; 2011 Dec; 38(10):679-82, 684-6, 688-90. PubMed ID: 22408888 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Lowering the Radiation Dose in Dental Offices. Radan E J Calif Dent Assoc; 2017 Apr; 45(4):189-95. PubMed ID: 29068621 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Dose measurements for dental cone-beam CT: a comparison with MSCT and panoramic imaging. Deman P; Atwal P; Duzenli C; Thakur Y; Ford NL Phys Med Biol; 2014 Jun; 59(12):3201-22. PubMed ID: 24862349 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography. Chau AC; Fung K Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Apr; 107(4):559-65. PubMed ID: 19168378 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Cone-beam computed tomography and its applications in dental and maxillofacial radiology. Schulze RKW; Drage NA Clin Radiol; 2020 Sep; 75(9):647-657. PubMed ID: 32451060 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Cone beam computed tomography: third eye in diagnosis and treatment planning. Seth V; Kamath P; Vaidya N Int J Orthod Milwaukee; 2012; 23(2):17-22. PubMed ID: 22873019 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]