182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24019808)
1. Beam hardening artifacts by dental implants: Comparison of cone-beam and 64-slice computed tomography scanners.
Esmaeili F; Johari M; Haddadi P
Dent Res J (Isfahan); 2013 May; 10(3):376-81. PubMed ID: 24019808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Beam Hardening Artifacts: Comparison between Two Cone Beam Computed Tomography Scanners.
Esmaeili F; Johari M; Haddadi P; Vatankhah M
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects; 2012; 6(2):49-53. PubMed ID: 22991636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Beam hardening artefacts occur in dental implant scans with the NewTom cone beam CT but not with the dental 4-row multidetector CT.
Draenert FG; Coppenrath E; Herzog P; Müller S; Mueller-Lisse UG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 May; 36(4):198-203. PubMed ID: 17536086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Quantification of bone quality using different cone beam computed tomography devices: Accuracy assessment for edentulous human mandibles.
Van Dessel J; Nicolielo LF; Huang Y; Slagmolen P; Politis C; Lambrichts I; Jacobs R
Eur J Oral Implantol; 2016; 9(4):411-424. PubMed ID: 27990508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of CT-Number and Gray Scale Value of Different Dental Materials and Hard Tissues in CT and CBCT.
Emadi N; Safi Y; Akbarzadeh Bagheban A; Asgary S
Iran Endod J; 2014; 9(4):283-6. PubMed ID: 25386210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Two examples of indication specific radiation dose calculations in dental CBCT and Multidetector CT scanners.
Stratis A; Zhang G; Lopez-Rendon X; Politis C; Hermans R; Jacobs R; Bogaerts R; Shaheen E; Bosmans H
Phys Med; 2017 Sep; 41():71-77. PubMed ID: 28392311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT) Part I. On subjective image quality.
Liang X; Jacobs R; Hassan B; Li L; Pauwels R; Corpas L; Souza PC; Martens W; Shahbazian M; Alonso A; Lambrichts I
Eur J Radiol; 2010 Aug; 75(2):265-9. PubMed ID: 19410409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Conventional multi-slice computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT) for computer-aided implant placement. Part II: reliability of mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides.
Arisan V; Karabuda ZC; Pişkin B; Özdemir T
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2013 Dec; 15(6):907-17. PubMed ID: 22235792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of anatomical region on the formation of metal artefacts produced by dental implants in cone beam computed tomographic images.
Machado AH; Fardim KAC; de Souza CF; Sotto-Maior BS; Assis NMSP; Devito KL
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2018 Feb; 47(3):20170281. PubMed ID: 29231055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Artifacts caused by titanium implants in CBCT images of the mandible: an experimental study.
Fardim KAC; Machado AH; Assis NMSP; Sotto-Maior BS; Mauad LQ; Devito KL
Gen Dent; 2022; 70(1):72-77. PubMed ID: 34978995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparative evaluation of Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) and Multi-Slice CT (MSCT). Part II: On 3D model accuracy.
Liang X; Lambrichts I; Sun Y; Denis K; Hassan B; Li L; Pauwels R; Jacobs R
Eur J Radiol; 2010 Aug; 75(2):270-4. PubMed ID: 19423257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Accuracy and reliability of different cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices for structural analysis of alveolar bone in comparison with multislice CT and micro-CT.
Van Dessel J; Nicolielo LF; Huang Y; Coudyzer W; Salmon B; Lambrichts I; Jacobs R
Eur J Oral Implantol; 2017; 10(1):95-105. PubMed ID: 28327698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Artifacts in orthodontic bracket systems in cone-beam computed tomography and multislice computed tomography.
Hirschinger V; Hanke S; Hirschfelder U; Hofmann E
J Orofac Orthop; 2015 Mar; 76(2):152-60, 162-3. PubMed ID: 25744093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Conventional multi-slice computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT) for computer-assisted implant placement. Part I: relationship of radiographic gray density and implant stability.
Arisan V; Karabuda ZC; Avsever H; Özdemir T
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2013 Dec; 15(6):893-906. PubMed ID: 22251553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The influence of dental implants in periapical and panoramic radiographs and cone beam computed tomography images: a clinical study.
Felix RP; Shinkai RSA; Rockenbach MIB
Gen Dent; 2018; 66(2):e1-e6. PubMed ID: 29513241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of the Hounsfield unit in CT scan with the gray level in cone-beam CT.
Razi T; Emamverdizadeh P; Nilavar N; Razi S
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects; 2019; 13(3):177-182. PubMed ID: 31857863
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Accuracy of MDCT and CBCT in three-dimensional evaluation of the oropharynx morphology.
Chen H; van Eijnatten M; Aarab G; Forouzanfar T; de Lange J; van der Stelt P; Lobbezoo F; Wolff J
Eur J Orthod; 2018 Jan; 40(1):58-64. PubMed ID: 28453722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessment of Volumetric Distortion Artifact in Filled Root Canals Using Different Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Devices.
Celikten B; Jacobs R; deFaria Vasconcelos K; Huang Y; Nicolielo LFP; Orhan K
J Endod; 2017 Sep; 43(9):1517-1521. PubMed ID: 28673491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Accuracy of densitometry of two cone beam computed tomography equipment in comparison with computed tomography.
Haghanifar S; Yousefi S; Moudi E; Abesi F; Bijani A; Moghadamnia AA; Nabahati M
Electron Physician; 2017 May; 9(5):4384-4390. PubMed ID: 28713511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
