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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22842639)

  • 1. A mathematical model relating changes of grey values to changes of thicknesses of a stepwedge.
    Geha H; Bechara B; Faddoul T; Noujeim M
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(1):50719185. PubMed ID: 22842639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A descriptive study of the radiographic density of implant restorative cements.
    Wadhwani C; Hess T; Faber T; Piñeyro A; Chen CS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 May; 103(5):295-302. PubMed ID: 20416413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Optimum exposure ranges for computed dental radiography.
    Hayakawa Y; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Kuroyanagi K; Rumack PM; Schick DB
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Apr; 25(2):71-5. PubMed ID: 9446976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of beam energy and filtration on the signal-to-noise ratio of the Dexis intraoral X-ray detector.
    Kitagawa H; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):21-4. PubMed ID: 15140818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Image quality in digital radiographic systems.
    de Almeida SM; de Oliveira AE; Ferreira RI; Bóscolo FN
    Braz Dent J; 2003; 14(2):136-41. PubMed ID: 12964659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sensitometric response of the Sens-A-Ray, a charge-coupled imaging device, to changes in beam energy.
    Goshima T; Goshima Y; Scarfe WC; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Jan; 25(1):17-8. PubMed ID: 9084280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of two objective methods to optimize kVp and personnel exposure using a digital indirect flat panel detector and simulated veterinary patients.
    Copple C; Robertson ID; Thrall DE; Samei E
    Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2013; 54(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 23293957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Radiation dose reduction in direct digital panoramic radiography.
    Gavala S; Donta C; Tsiklakis K; Boziari A; Kamenopoulou V; Stamatakis HC
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Jul; 71(1):42-8. PubMed ID: 18448296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessing the image quality of a CCD-based digital intraoral radiography system: application of perceptibility curve test.
    Hayakawa Y; Kitagawa H; Wakoh M; Kuroyanagi K; Welander U
    Bull Tokyo Dent Coll; 2000 Feb; 41(1):9-14. PubMed ID: 11212381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Study of the radio-opacity of base and liner dental materials using a digital radiography system.
    Lachowski KM; Botta SB; Lascala CA; Matos AB; Sobral MA
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(2):20120153. PubMed ID: 23393292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of bit depth and kVp of digital radiography for detection of subtle differences.
    Heo MS; Choi DH; Benavides E; Huh KH; Yi WJ; Lee SS; Choi SC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Aug; 108(2):278-83. PubMed ID: 19272812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Radiopacity of dental materials using a digital X-ray system.
    Gu S; Rasimick BJ; Deutsch AS; Musikant BL
    Dent Mater; 2006 Aug; 22(8):765-70. PubMed ID: 16360848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluating phantom image quality parameters to optimise patient radiation dose in dental digital radiology.
    Gonzalez L; Vano E; Fernandez R; Ziraldo V; Delgado J; Delgado V; Moro J; Ubeda C
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Aug; 151(1):95-101. PubMed ID: 22232776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 1: phantom validity.
    Yoshiura K; Kawazu T; Chikui T; Tatsumi M; Tokumori K; Tanaka T; Kanda S
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Jan; 87(1):115-22. PubMed ID: 9927090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of complementary metal oxide semiconductor and charge-coupled device intraoral X-ray detectors using subjective image quality.
    Kitagawa H; Scheetz JP; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):408-11. PubMed ID: 15070845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of K-shell absorption edge filters on image quality in digital intraoral radiography.
    Shibuya H; Nishikawa K; Kuroyanagi K
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2000 Sep; 90(3):377-84. PubMed ID: 10982962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Analysis of the reproducibility of the gray values and noise of a direct digital radiography system.
    Poleti ML; Fernandes TM; Teixeira RC; Capelozza AL; Rubira-Bullen IR
    Braz Oral Res; 2015; 29():. PubMed ID: 26017488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. OPTIMIZING IMAGE QUALITY, RADIATION DOSAGE TO THE PATIENT AND TO THE DETECTOR IN PEDIATRIC CHEST RADIOGRAPHY: A PHANTOM STUDY OF A PORTABLE DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEM.
    Shahgeldi K; Sjöberg T; Nordström J; Lesanu R; Svahn TM
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(4):414-420. PubMed ID: 30916753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The perceptibility curve test applied to direct digital dental radiography.
    Yoshiura K; Stamatakis H; Shi XQ; Welander U; McDavid WD; Kristoffersen J; Tronje G
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 May; 27(3):131-5. PubMed ID: 9693524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of a Mathematical Model for Digital Image Enhancement.
    Geha H; Nasseh I; Noujeim M
    Open Dent J; 2015; 9():292-6. PubMed ID: 26464598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.