251 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21062944)
1. Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities in detection of proximal caries.
Senel B; Kamburoglu K; Uçok O; Yüksel SP; Ozen T; Avsever H
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 Dec; 39(8):501-11. PubMed ID: 21062944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effectiveness of limited cone-beam computed tomography in the detection of horizontal root fracture.
Kamburoğlu K; Ilker Cebeci AR; Gröndahl HG
Dent Traumatol; 2009 Jun; 25(3):256-61. PubMed ID: 19583573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Intraoral versus extraoral bitewing radiography in detection of enamel proximal caries: an ex vivo study.
Abu El-Ela WH; Farid MM; Mostafa MS
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(4):20150326. PubMed ID: 26892946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of Diagnostic Ability of Conventional Film and Storage Phosphor Plate in Detecting Proximal Caries with Direct Measurements by Stereomicroscope: A Diagnostic Test Evaluation.
Vijayan AK; Jo S; Mathew B; Vidyadharan M; Nair AM
Contemp Clin Dent; 2022; 13(2):156-161. PubMed ID: 35846590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Occlusal caries detection by using a cone-beam CT with different voxel resolutions and a digital intraoral sensor.
Kamburoğlu K; Murat S; Yüksel SP; Cebeci AR; Paksoy CS
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 May; 109(5):e63-9. PubMed ID: 20416522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Accuracy of computer aided measurement for detecting dental proximal caries lesions in images of cone-beam computed tomography].
Zhang ZL; Li JP; Li G; Ma XC
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2017 Feb; 52(2):103-108. PubMed ID: 28253585
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. An ex vivo comparative study of occlusal and proximal caries using terahertz and X-ray imaging.
Kamburoğlu K; Karagöz B; Altan H; Özen D
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2019 Feb; 48(2):20180250. PubMed ID: 30379560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Detection accuracy of proximal caries by phosphor plate and cone-beam computerized tomography images scanned with different resolutions.
Cheng JG; Zhang ZL; Wang XY; Zhang ZY; Ma XC; Li G
Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Aug; 16(4):1015-21. PubMed ID: 21805053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Interpretation of chemically created periapical lesions using 2 different dental cone-beam computerized tomography units, an intraoral digital sensor, and conventional film.
Ozen T; Kamburoğlu K; Cebeci AR; Yüksel SP; Paksoy CS
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Mar; 107(3):426-32. PubMed ID: 18996725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Two- and three-dimensional imaging modalities for the detection of caries. A comparison between film, digital radiography and tuned aperture computed tomography (TACT).
Abreu Júnior M; Tyndall DA; Platin E; Ludlow JB; Phillips C
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 May; 28(3):152-7. PubMed ID: 10740469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparative study of the diagnostic accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and intraoral radiographic modalities for the detection of noncavitated caries.
Krzyżostaniak J; Kulczyk T; Czarnecka B; Surdacka A
Clin Oral Investig; 2015 Apr; 19(3):667-72. PubMed ID: 25059712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Occlusal caries depth measurements obtained by five different imaging modalities.
Kamburoğlu K; Kurt H; Kolsuz E; Öztaş B; Tatar I; Çelik HH
J Digit Imaging; 2011 Oct; 24(5):804-13. PubMed ID: 21116675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Extraoral imaging for proximal caries detection: Bitewings vs scanogram.
Khan EA; Tyndall DA; Caplan D
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2004 Dec; 98(6):730-7. PubMed ID: 15583548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessment of vertical root fractures using three imaging modalities: cone beam CT, intraoral digital radiography and film.
Kambungton J; Janhom A; Prapayasatok S; Pongsiriwet S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2012 Feb; 41(2):91-5. PubMed ID: 22301636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Approximal caries depth assessment with storage phosphor versus film radiography. Evaluation of the caries-specific Oslo enhancement procedure.
Svanaes DB; Moystad A; Larheim TA
Caries Res; 2000; 34(6):448-53. PubMed ID: 11093017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Comparison of direct digital and conventional radiography for the detection of proximal surface caries in the mixed dentition.
Uprichard KK; Potter BJ; Russell CM; Schafer TE; Adair S; Weller RN
Pediatr Dent; 2000; 22(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 10730280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Ex vivo comparison of Galileos cone beam CT and intraoral radiographs in detecting occlusal caries.
Rathore S; Tyndall D; Wright J; Everett E
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2012 Sep; 41(6):489-93. PubMed ID: 22184471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
