315 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22866414)
41. Performance evaluation and testing of digital intra-oral radiographic systems.
Doyle P; Finney L
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):313-7. PubMed ID: 16461488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of film and digital tomograms for assessment of morphological changes in the TMJ.
Wiese M; Hintze H; Svensson P; Wenzel A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Jan; 36(1):12-7. PubMed ID: 17329582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. [A comparative study of analog and digital intraoral x-ray image detector systems].
Blendl C; Stengel C; Zdunczyk S
Rofo; 2000 Jun; 172(6):534-41. PubMed ID: 10916550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. [The measurement parameters in dental radiography: a comparison between traditional and digital technics].
Lazzerini F; Minorati D; Nessi R; Gagliani M; Uslenghi CM
Radiol Med; 1996 Apr; 91(4):364-9. PubMed ID: 8643845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation.
Ludlow JB; Davies-Ludlow LE; White SC
J Am Dent Assoc; 2008 Sep; 139(9):1237-43. PubMed ID: 18762634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Is digital better in dental radiography?
Zdesar U; Fortuna T; Valantic B; Skrk D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):138-9. PubMed ID: 18375462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Comparison between intraoral indirect and conventional film-based imaging for the detection of dental root fractures: an ex vivo study.
Shintaku WH; Venturin JS; Noujeim M; Dove SB
Dent Traumatol; 2013 Dec; 29(6):445-9. PubMed ID: 23566073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Digital imaging for dental caries.
Wenzel A
Dent Clin North Am; 2000 Apr; 44(2):319-38, vi. PubMed ID: 10740771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. An evaluation of microbiologic contamination on a phosphor plate system: is weekly gas sterilization enough?
Kalathingal S; Youngpeter A; Minton J; Shrout M; Dickinson D; Plummer K; Looney S
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Mar; 109(3):457-62. PubMed ID: 20060337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Digital images obtained with a digital camera are not associated with a loss of critical information--a preliminary study.
Peretz B; Kaffe I; Amir E
Br Dent J; 2009 Mar; 206(5):E9; discussion 268-9. PubMed ID: 19265830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. 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]
52. Reproducibility of pixel values for two photostimulable phosphor plates in consecutive standardized scannings.
Freitas P; Yaedú RY; Rubira-Bullen IR; Escarpinati M; Vieira MC; Schiabel H; Lauris JR
Braz Oral Res; 2006; 20(3):207-13. PubMed ID: 17119702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. A comparative evaluation of the diagnostic efficacy of film and digital sensors for detection of simulated periapical lesions.
Wallace JA; Nair MK; Colaco MF; Kapa SF
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Jul; 92(1):93-7. PubMed ID: 11458252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: a systematic review.
Wenzel A; Møystad A
Acta Odontol Scand; 2010 Mar; 68(2):106-14. PubMed ID: 20141365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Influence of tube potential setting and dose on the visibility of lesions in intraoral radiography.
Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Reinert S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Feb; 36(2):75-9. PubMed ID: 17403883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Patient comfort in periapical examination using digital receptors.
Gonçalves A; Wiezel VG; Gonçalves M; Hebling J; Sannomiya EK
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Oct; 38(7):484-8. PubMed ID: 19767521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Patient discomfort and retakes in periapical examination of mandibular third molars using digital receptors and film.
Matzen LH; Christensen J; Wenzel A
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Apr; 107(4):566-72. PubMed ID: 19121963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. The dynamic range of digital radiographic systems: dose reduction or risk of overexposure?
Berkhout WE; Beuger DA; Sanderink GC; van der Stelt PF
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 15140814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Clinical extension of proximal carious lesions compared to bitewing radiographs using photostimulable phosphor plates (PSP).
Khalaf ME; Baghdadi MT; Faridoun AE; Alshawaf NM; Qudeimat MA
J Dent; 2022 Jul; 122():104145. PubMed ID: 35523378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Standards for intraoral radiographic imaging.
Farman AG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Sep; 29(5):257-9. PubMed ID: 10980558
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
