217 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20965675)
21. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use.
Jacobs R; Salmon B; Codari M; Hassan B; Bornstein MM
BMC Oral Health; 2018 May; 18(1):88. PubMed ID: 29764458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Optimization of dental CBCT exposures through mAs reduction.
Pauwels R; Seynaeve L; Henriques JC; de Oliveira-Santos C; Souza PC; Westphalen FH; Rubira-Bullen IR; Ribeiro-Rotta RF; Rockenbach MI; Haiter-Neto F; Pittayapat P; Bosmans H; Bogaerts R; Jacobs R
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(9):20150108. PubMed ID: 26090934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Influence of the milliamperage settings on cone beam computed tomography imaging for implant planning.
Vasconcelos TV; Neves FS; Queiroz de Freitas D; Campos PS; Watanabe PC
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2014; 29(6):1364-8. PubMed ID: 25265127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality.
Liang X; Jacobs R; Hassan B; Li L; Pauwels R; Corpas L; Souza PC; Martens W; Shahbazian M; Alonso A; Lambrichts I
Eur J Radiol; 2010 Aug; 75(2):265-9. PubMed ID: 19410409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Dose optimization for assessment of periodontal structures in cone beam CT examinations.
Al-Okshi A; Theodorakou C; Lindh C
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2017 Mar; 46(3):20160311. PubMed ID: 27910717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Reduction of scatter-induced image noise in cone beam computed tomography: effect of field of view size and position.
Pauwels R; Jacobs R; Bogaerts R; Bosmans H; Panmekiate S
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2016 Feb; 121(2):188-95. PubMed ID: 26792756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT images of different voxel resolutions used to detect simulated small internal resorption cavities.
Kamburoğlu K; Kursun S
Int Endod J; 2010 Sep; 43(9):798-807. PubMed ID: 20609023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Effective radiation dose and eye lens dose in dental cone beam CT: effect of field of view and angle of rotation.
Pauwels R; Zhang G; Theodorakou C; Walker A; Bosmans H; Jacobs R; Bogaerts R; Horner K;
Br J Radiol; 2014 Oct; 87(1042):20130654. PubMed ID: 25189417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. An alternative method to match planned and achieved positions of implants, after virtual planning using cone-beam CT data and surgical guide templates--a method reducing patient radiation exposure (part I).
Nickenig HJ; Eitner S
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2010 Sep; 38(6):436-40. PubMed ID: 19939692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Assessments of jaw bone density at implant sites using 3D cone-beam computed tomography.
Hao Y; Zhao W; Wang Y; Yu J; Zou D
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci; 2014; 18(9):1398-403. PubMed ID: 24867520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Diagnostic accuracy of limited-volume cone-beam computed tomography in the detection of periapical bone loss: 360° scans versus 180° scans.
Lennon S; Patel S; Foschi F; Wilson R; Davies J; Mannocci F
Int Endod J; 2011 Dec; 44(12):1118-27. PubMed ID: 21895701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. A comparison of jaw dimensional and quality assessments of bone characteristics with cone-beam CT, spiral tomography, and multi-slice spiral CT.
Loubele M; Guerrero ME; Jacobs R; Suetens P; van Steenberghe D
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2007; 22(3):446-54. PubMed ID: 17622012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. An in vitro comparison of subjective image quality of panoramic views acquired via 2D or 3D imaging.
Pittayapat P; Galiti D; Huang Y; Dreesen K; Schreurs M; Souza PC; Rubira-Bullen IR; Westphalen FH; Pauwels R; Kalema G; Willems G; Jacobs R
Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Jan; 17(1):293-300. PubMed ID: 22382448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Comparison of cone-beam imaging with orthopantomography and computerized tomography for assessment in presurgical implant dentistry.
Dreiseidler T; Mischkowski RA; Neugebauer J; Ritter L; Zöller JE
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(2):216-25. PubMed ID: 19492636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Three-dimensional maxillary and mandibular regional superimposition using cone beam computed tomography: a validation study.
Koerich L; Burns D; Weissheimer A; Claus JD
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2016 May; 45(5):662-9. PubMed ID: 26794399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Assessment of phantom dosimetry and image quality of i-CAT FLX cone-beam computed tomography.
Ludlow JB; Walker C
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Dec; 144(6):802-17. PubMed ID: 24286904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Dental cone beam computed tomography: justification for use in planning oral implant placement.
Jacobs R; Quirynen M
Periodontol 2000; 2014 Oct; 66(1):203-13. PubMed ID: 25123769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: current concepts, indications and limitations for clinical practice and research.
Bornstein MM; Horner K; Jacobs R
Periodontol 2000; 2017 Feb; 73(1):51-72. PubMed ID: 28000270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The reliability of cone-beam computed tomography to assess bone density at dental implant recipient sites: a histomorphometric analysis by micro-CT.
González-García R; Monje F
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Aug; 24(8):871-9. PubMed ID: 22250839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. The effect of scan parameters on cone beam CT trabecular bone microstructural measurements of human mandible.
Ibrahim N; Parsa A; Hassan B; van der Stelt P; Aartman IH; Wismeijer D
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(10):20130206. PubMed ID: 24404603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
