136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21346084)
1. Length of endodontic files measured in digital radiographs with and without noise-suppression filters: an ex-vivo study.
Brüllmann DD; Röhrig B; Sulayman SL; Schulze R
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2011 Mar; 40(3):170-6. PubMed ID: 21346084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The use of high-resolution digital imaging technology for small diameter K-file length determination in endodontics.
Vandenberghe B; Bud M; Sutanto A; Jacobs R
Clin Oral Investig; 2010 Apr; 14(2):223-31. PubMed ID: 19452176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effect of combined digital imaging parameters on endodontic file measurements.
de Oliveira ML; Pinto GC; Ambrosano GM; Tosoni GM
J Endod; 2012 Oct; 38(10):1404-7. PubMed ID: 22980188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of digital and geometric unsharpness in dental radiographs using an endodontic file model.
Radan E; Price C
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2002 Feb; 93(2):208-14. PubMed ID: 11862213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Diagnostic consistency for observing endodontic files in digital radiographs displayed on different electronic devices].
Liu R; Li G
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2022 Apr; 57(4):384-389. PubMed ID: 35368164
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. A comparison of digitally scanned radiographs with conventional film for the detection of small endodontic instruments.
Fuge KN; Stuck AM; Love RM
Int Endod J; 1998 Mar; 31(2):123-6. PubMed ID: 9868939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Linear measurements to determine working length of curved canals with fine files: conventional versus digital radiography.
Brito-Júnior M; Santos LA; Baleeiro EN; Pêgo MM; Eleutério NB; Camilo CC
J Oral Sci; 2009 Dec; 51(4):559-64. PubMed ID: 20032608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Endodontic measurement accuracy and perceived radiograph quality: effects of film speed and density.
Sheaffer JC; Eleazer PD; Scheetz JP; Clark SJ; Farman AG
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2003 Oct; 96(4):441-8. PubMed ID: 14561969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Ex vivo comparison of radiographic and electronic root canal length measurements in primary molars.
Topaloglu-Ak A; Aykut Yetkiner A; Güniz Baksi B; Eronat C
Eur J Paediatr Dent; 2015 Jun; 16(2):149-53. PubMed ID: 26147823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The modulation transfer function and signal-to-noise ratio of different digital filters: a technical approach.
Brüllmann DD; d'Hoedt B
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2011 May; 40(4):222-9. PubMed ID: 21493878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effect of various digital processing algorithms on the measurement accuracy of endodontic file length.
Kal BI; Baksi BG; Dündar N; Sen BH
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2007 Feb; 103(2):280-4. PubMed ID: 17234548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Efficacy of several digital radiographic imaging systems for laboratory determination of endodontic file length.
Oliveira ML; Ambrosano GM; Almeida SM; Haiter-Neto F; Tosoni GM
Int Endod J; 2011 May; 44(5):469-73. PubMed ID: 21276021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Measurement of endodontic file lengths: a density profile plot analysis.
Piepenbring ME; Potter BJ; Weller RN; Loushine RJ
J Endod; 2000 Oct; 26(10):615-8. PubMed ID: 11199805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of ambient light and bit depth of digital radiograph on observer performance in determination of endodontic file positioning.
Heo MS; Han DH; An BM; Huh KH; Yi WJ; Lee SS; Choi SC
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2008 Feb; 105(2):239-44. PubMed ID: 17604662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of endodontic files in digital radiographs before and after employing three image processing algorithms.
Li G; Sanderink GC; Welander U; McDavid WD; Näsström K
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):6-11. PubMed ID: 15140815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Measurement of endodontic file lengths: calibrated versus uncalibrated digital images.
Loushine RJ; Weller RN; Kimbrough WF; Potter BJ
J Endod; 2001 Dec; 27(12):779-81. PubMed ID: 11771590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of observer performance in determining the position of endodontic files with physical measures in the evaluation of dental X-ray imaging systems.
Vandre RH; Pajak JC; Abdel-Nabi H; Farman TT; Farman AG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jul; 29(4):216-22. PubMed ID: 10918454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparison of apical transportation between FlexMaster and Twisted Files rotary instruments.
Duran-Sindreu F; García M; Olivieri JG; Mercadé M; Morelló S; Roig M
J Endod; 2012 Jul; 38(7):993-5. PubMed ID: 22703668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comparison of apical transportation between ProFile and RaCe rotary instruments.
García M; Duran-Sindreu F; Mercadé M; Bueno R; Roig M
J Endod; 2012 Jul; 38(7):990-2. PubMed ID: 22703667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparison of phosphor-plate digital images with conventional radiographs for the perceived clarity of fine endodontic files and periapical lesions.
Friedlander LT; Love RM; Chandler NP
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2002 Mar; 93(3):321-7. PubMed ID: 11925542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
