266 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22458628)
21. CBCT vs other imaging modalities to assess peri-implant bone and diagnose complications: a systematic review.
Jacobs R; Vranckx M; Vanderstuyft T; Quirynen M; Salmon B
Eur J Oral Implantol; 2018; 11 Suppl 1():77-92. PubMed ID: 30109301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Efficacy of cone-beam computed tomography with modified gray-scale range versus digital periapical radiography for the assessment of bone-implant interface gaps.
Kajan ZD; Abbasi S; Khosravifard N; Sigaroudi AK; Motevasseli S
Oral Radiol; 2022 Jan; 38(1):80-88. PubMed ID: 33893899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Cone beam computed tomography radiation dose and image quality assessments.
Lofthag-Hansen S
Swed Dent J Suppl; 2010; (209):4-55. PubMed ID: 21229915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Diagnostic Accuracy of Three Cone Beam Computed Tomography Systems and Periapical Radiography for Detection of Fenestration Around Dental Implants.
Eskandarloo A; Saati S; Ardakani MP; Jamalpour M; Gholi Mezerji NM; Akheshteh V
Contemp Clin Dent; 2018; 9(3):376-381. PubMed ID: 30166830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Imaging evaluating of the implant/bone interface-an in vitro radiographic study.
Vidor MM; Liedke GS; Vizzotto MB; da Silveira HLD; da Silveira PF; Araujo CW; da Silveira HED
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2017 Jul; 46(5):20160296. PubMed ID: 28211288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography in assessing peri-implant bone defect regeneration: a histologically controlled study in dogs.
Fienitz T; Schwarz F; Ritter L; Dreiseidler T; Becker J; Rothamel D
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2012 Jul; 23(7):882-7. PubMed ID: 21707753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Intra- and inter-observer agreements in detecting peri-implant bone defects between periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography: A clinical study.
Zhang CN; Zhu Y; Fan LF; Zhang X; Jiang YH; Gu YX
J Dent Sci; 2021 Jul; 16(3):948-956. PubMed ID: 34141109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT versus intraoral imaging for assessment of peri-implant bone defects.
Song D; Shujaat S; de Faria Vasconcelos K; Huang Y; Politis C; Lambrichts I; Jacobs R
BMC Med Imaging; 2021 Feb; 21(1):23. PubMed ID: 33568085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Higher Resolution in Cone Beam Computed Tomography Is Accompanied by Improved Bone Detection in Peri-implant Bone Despite Metal Artifact Presence.
Kerkfeld V; Meyer U
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2018; 33(6):1331-1338. PubMed ID: 30427964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. In vitro comparison of contemporary radiographic imaging techniques for the measurement of inter-radicular width.
Al-Tamimi B; Davies J; Fiorentino F; Bister D
J Orthod; 2016 Mar; 43(1):24-32. PubMed ID: 26750432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparison between cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral digital radiography for assessment of tooth root lesions.
Kumar V; Gossett L; Blattner A; Iwasaki LR; Williams K; Nickel JC
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Jun; 139(6):e533-41. PubMed ID: 21640865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Reliability of circumferential bone level assessment around single implants in healed ridges and extraction sockets using cone beam CT.
Raes F; Renckens L; Aps J; Cosyn J; De Bruyn H
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2013 Oct; 15(5):661-72. PubMed ID: 22008055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Efficacy of Periapical Radiography and Three Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Systems for Detection of Peri-Implant Dehiscence Defects: An in- Vitro Study.
V A; A E; S S; M R J; Gholi Mezerji N M
J Biomed Phys Eng; 2020 Dec; 10(6):751-760. PubMed ID: 33364213
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Detection of peri-implant bone defects using cone-beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography with parallel and oblique projection.
Vadiati Saberi B; Khosravifard N; Ghandari F; Hadinezhad A
Imaging Sci Dent; 2019 Dec; 49(4):265-272. PubMed ID: 31915611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Comparative analysis of the accuracy of periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for diagnosing complex endodontic pathoses using a gold standard reference - A prospective clinical study.
G K; Singh N; Yadav R; Duhan J; Tewari S; Gupta A; Sangwan P; Mittal S
Int Endod J; 2021 Sep; 54(9):1448-1461. PubMed ID: 33904603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Cone beam computed tomography artefacts around dental implants with different materials influencing the detection of peri-implant bone defects.
Schriber M; Yeung AWK; Suter VGA; Buser D; Leung YY; Bornstein MM
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2020 Jul; 31(7):595-606. PubMed ID: 32147872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Diagnostic performance of cone beam computed tomography in assessing peri-implant bone loss: A systematic review.
Pelekos G; Acharya A; Tonetti MS; Bornstein MM
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 May; 29(5):443-464. PubMed ID: 29578266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. Detection of vertical root fractures in the presence of intracanal metallic post: a comparison between periapical radiography and cone-beam computed tomography.
Junqueira RB; Verner FS; Campos CN; Devito KL; do Carmo AM
J Endod; 2013 Dec; 39(12):1620-4. PubMed ID: 24238460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Digital volume tomography in the diagnosis of peri-implant defects: an in vitro study on native pig mandibles.
Mengel R; Kruse B; Flores-de-Jacoby L
J Periodontol; 2006 Jul; 77(7):1234-41. PubMed ID: 16805688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
