219 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22092375)
1. The effect of surrounding conditions on pixel value of cone beam computed tomography.
Araki K; Okano T
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Aug; 24(8):862-5. PubMed ID: 22092375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Correlation between pixel values in a cone-beam computed tomographic scanner and the computed tomographic values in a multidetector row computed tomographic scanner.
Chindasombatjaroen J; Kakimoto N; Shimamoto H; Murakami S; Furukawa S
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2011; 35(5):662-5. PubMed ID: 21926866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography.
Nackaerts O; Maes F; Yan H; Couto Souza P; Pauwels R; Jacobs R
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2011 Aug; 22(8):873-9. PubMed ID: 21244502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The reliability of computed tomography (CT) values and dimensional measurements of the oropharyngeal region using cone beam CT: comparison with multidetector CT.
Yamashina A; Tanimoto K; Sutthiprapaporn P; Hayakawa Y
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Jul; 37(5):245-51. PubMed ID: 18606745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography.
Molteni R
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2013 Jul; 116(1):105-19. PubMed ID: 23768878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Dose and image quality of cone-beam computed tomography as compared with conventional multislice computed tomography in abdominal imaging.
Schegerer AA; Lechel U; Ritter M; Weisser G; Fink C; Brix G
Invest Radiol; 2014 Oct; 49(10):675-84. PubMed ID: 24853071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Quantitative assessment of lipiodol deposition after chemoembolization: comparison between cone-beam CT and multidetector CT.
Chen R; Geschwind JF; Wang Z; Tacher V; Lin M
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2013 Dec; 24(12):1837-44. PubMed ID: 24094672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Accuracy of linear measurement and the measurement limits of thin objects with cone beam computed tomography: effects of measurement directions and of phantom locations in the fields of view.
Tsutsumi K; Chikui T; Okamura K; Yoshiura K
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(1):91-100. PubMed ID: 21365043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Influence of anatomical location on CT numbers in cone beam computed tomography.
Oliveira ML; Tosoni GM; Lindsey DH; Mendoza K; Tetradis S; Mallya SM
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2013 Apr; 115(4):558-64. PubMed ID: 23522649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Correction of image artifacts from treatment couch in cone-beam CT from kV on-board imaging.
Ali I; Ahmad S; Alsbou N; Lovelock DM; Kriminski S; Amols H
J Xray Sci Technol; 2011; 19(3):321-32. PubMed ID: 21876282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Value of Latest-generation Cone-beam Computed Tomography for Post Lipiodol-embolization Imaging in Hepatic Transarterial Chemoembolization in Comparison with Multi-detector Computed Tomography.
Alizadeh LS; Koch V; Vogl TJ; Yel I; Gruenewald L; Albrecht MH; Herrmann E; von Knebel-Doeberitz PL; Booz C
Acad Radiol; 2022 Jul; 29(7):e109-e118. PubMed ID: 34598867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A new method to assess the accuracy of a Cone Beam Computed Tomography scanner by using a non-contact reverse engineering technique.
Martorelli M; Ausiello P; Morrone R
J Dent; 2014 Apr; 42(4):460-5. PubMed ID: 24412585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Computed gray levels in multislice and cone-beam computed tomography.
Azeredo F; de Menezes LM; Enciso R; Weissheimer A; de Oliveira RB
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Jul; 144(1):147-55. PubMed ID: 23810056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Image quality assessment of three cone beam CT machines using the SEDENTEXCT CT phantom.
Bamba J; Araki K; Endo A; Okano T
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(8):20120445. PubMed ID: 23956235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Reliability of voxel values from cone-beam computed tomography for dental use in evaluating bone mineral density.
Nomura Y; Watanabe H; Honda E; Kurabayashi T
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2010 May; 21(5):558-62. PubMed ID: 20443807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. High-quality image acquisition by double exposure overlap in dental cone beam computed tomography.
Plachtovics M; Bujtar P; Nagy K; Mommaerts M
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2014 Jun; 117(6):760-7. PubMed ID: 24736110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Dose and image quality evaluation of a dedicated cone-beam CT system for high-contrast neurologic applications.
Yu L; Vrieze TJ; Bruesewitz MR; Kofler JM; DeLone DR; Pallanch JF; Lindell EP; McCollough CH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Feb; 194(2):W193-201. PubMed ID: 20093573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Use of gray values in CBCT and MSCT images for determination of density: influence of variation of FOV size.
Rodrigues AF; Campos MJ; Chaoubah A; Fraga MR; Farinazzo Vitral RW
Implant Dent; 2015 Apr; 24(2):155-9. PubMed ID: 25706259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of reconstructed images from cone-beam computed tomography scans.
Lamichane M; Anderson NK; Rigali PH; Seldin EB; Will LA
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Aug; 136(2):156.e1-6; discussion 156-7. PubMed ID: 19651340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Quantification of metal artifacts on cone beam computed tomography images.
Pauwels R; Stamatakis H; Bosmans H; Bogaerts R; Jacobs R; Horner K; Tsiklakis K;
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Aug; 24 Suppl A100():94-9. PubMed ID: 22168574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
