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.
150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21689544)
1. Endodontic radiography: who is reading the digital radiograph? Tewary S; Luzzo J; Hartwell G J Endod; 2011 Jul; 37(7):919-21. PubMed ID: 21689544 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Radiologic Assessment of Periapical Health: Comparison of 3 Different Index Systems. Tarcin B; Gumru B; Iriboz E; Turkaydin DE; Ovecoglu HS J Endod; 2015 Nov; 41(11):1834-8. PubMed ID: 26386947 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of New Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Criteria for Radiographic Healing Evaluation after Apical Surgery: Assessment of Repeatability and Reproducibility. von Arx T; Janner SF; Hänni S; Bornstein MM J Endod; 2016 Feb; 42(2):236-42. PubMed ID: 26723486 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Comparison of endodontic diagnosis and treatment planning decisions using cone-beam volumetric tomography versus periapical radiography. Ee J; Fayad MI; Johnson BR J Endod; 2014 Jul; 40(7):910-6. PubMed ID: 24935534 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The detection of periapical pathosis using digital periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography - part 2: a 1-year post-treatment follow-up. Patel S; Wilson R; Dawood A; Foschi F; Mannocci F Int Endod J; 2012 Aug; 45(8):711-23. PubMed ID: 22775142 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The impact of image compression on diagnostic quality of digital images for detection of chemically-induced periapical lesions. Koenig L; Parks E; Analoui M; Eckert G Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 15140821 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Interpretation of periapical lesions comparing conventional, direct digital, and telephonically transmitted radiographic images. Mistak EJ; Loushine RJ; Primack PD; West LA; Runyan DA J Endod; 1998 Apr; 24(4):262-6. PubMed ID: 9641132 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of bitewing, periapical, unfiltered and filtered digital panoramic images for approximal caries detection in posterior teeth. Akarslan ZZ; Akdevelioğlu M; Güngör K; Erten H Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Dec; 37(8):458-63. PubMed ID: 19033431 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Clarity and diagnostic quality of digitized conventional intraoral radiographs. Goga R; Chandler NP; Love RM Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Mar; 33(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 15314002 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Application of computerised image analysis to monitoring endodontic therapy: reproducibility and comparison with visual assessment. Kerosuo E; Orstavik D Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 Mar; 26(2):79-84. PubMed ID: 9442621 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Interobserver and Intraobserver Reliability of Cone-beam Computed Tomography in Identification of Apical Periodontitis. Barnett CW; Glickman GN; Umorin M; Jalali P J Endod; 2018 Jun; 44(6):938-940. PubMed ID: 29550001 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Interpretation of chemically created lesions using direct digital imaging. Tirrell BC; Miles DA; Brown CE; Legan JJ J Endod; 1996 Feb; 22(2):74-8. PubMed ID: 8935022 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Interpretation of chemically created periapical lesions using direct digital imaging. Meier AW; Brown CE; Miles DA; Analoui M J Endod; 1996 Oct; 22(10):516-20. PubMed ID: 9198437 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparative diagnostic assessment of anterior tooth and bone status using panoramic and periapical radiography. Le T; Nassery K; Kahlert B; Heithersay G Aust Orthod J; 2011 Nov; 27(2):162-8. PubMed ID: 22372273 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Intra- and interobserver agreement with regard to describing adnexal masses using International Ovarian Tumor Analysis terminology: reproducibility study involving seven observers. Zannoni L; Savelli L; Jokubkiene L; Di Legge A; Condous G; Testa AC; Sladkevicius P; Valentin L Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Jul; 44(1):100-8. PubMed ID: 24307182 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comparison between panoramic digital and digitized images to detect simulated periapical lesions using radiographic subtraction. Miguens SA; Veeck EB; Fontanella VR; da Costa NP J Endod; 2008 Dec; 34(12):1500-3. PubMed ID: 19026882 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Radiological assessment of periapical status using the periapical index: comparison of periapical radiography and digital panoramic radiography. Ridao-Sacie C; Segura-Egea JJ; Fernández-Palacín A; Bullón-Fernández P; Ríos-Santos JV Int Endod J; 2007 Jun; 40(6):433-40. PubMed ID: 17451455 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]