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.
141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24237729)
21. Radiation doses of indirect and direct digital cephalometric radiography. Gijbels F; Sanderink G; Wyatt J; Van Dam J; Nowak B; Jacobs R Br Dent J; 2004 Aug; 197(3):149-52; discussion 140. PubMed ID: 15311250 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Physical properties and ease of operation of a wireless intraoral x-ray sensor. Tsuchida R; Araki K; Endo A; Funahashi I; Okano T Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2005 Nov; 100(5):603-8. PubMed ID: 16243247 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. [Digital thoracic radiography--a comparison of digital and analog imaging techniques]. Busch HP Bildgebung; 1991; 58 Suppl 1():9-12. PubMed ID: 1799858 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection. Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Image quality of digital and film radiographs in applications sent to the Dental Insurance Office in Sweden for treatment approval. Hellén-Halme K; Johansson PM; Håkansson J; Petersson A Swed Dent J; 2004; 28(2):77-84. PubMed ID: 15272512 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Intraoral detectors. CCD, CMOS, TFT, and other devices. Sanderink GC; Miles DA Dent Clin North Am; 2000 Apr; 44(2):249-55, v. PubMed ID: 10740767 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Forensic oral imaging quality of hand-held dental X-ray devices: comparison of two image receptors and two devices. Pittayapat P; Thevissen P; Fieuws S; Jacobs R; Willems G Forensic Sci Int; 2010 Jan; 194(1-3):20-7. PubMed ID: 19913377 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
30. Quality assurance in digital dental radiography--justification and dose reduction in dental and maxillofacial radiology. Hellstern F; Geibel MA Int J Comput Dent; 2012; 15(1):35-44. PubMed ID: 22930946 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparison of technique errors of intraoral radiographs taken on film v photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plates. Zhang W; Huynh CP; Abramovitch K; Leon IL; Arvizu L Tex Dent J; 2012 Jun; 129(6):589-96. PubMed ID: 22866414 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Image-quality figure evaluator based on contrast-detail phantom in radiography. Wang CL; Wang CM; Chan YK; Chen RT Int J Med Robot; 2012 Jun; 8(2):169-77. PubMed ID: 22213357 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The role of direct intraoral sensors in the provision of endodontic services. Lavelle CL Endod Dent Traumatol; 1999 Feb; 15(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 10219147 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Digital intraoral radiographic quality assurance and control in private practice. Walker TF; Mah P; Dove SB; McDavid WD Gen Dent; 2014; 62(5):22-9. PubMed ID: 25184710 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Quality assurance: acceptance testing for digital dental intraoral sensors. Reeves TE; Lien W; Mah P Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2020 Apr; 129(4):388-400. PubMed ID: 31982368 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The development of a new direct digital extra-oral radiographic system prototype using a thin-film transistor panel. Sakurai T; Matsuki T; Nakamura K; Kashima I; Lee DL; Cheung LK; Jeromin LS Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 May; 27(3):172-7. PubMed ID: 9693530 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Assessments of the physical performance of 2 generations of 2 direct digital intraoral sensors. Attaelmanan AG; Borg E; Gröndahl HG Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Oct; 88(4):517-23. PubMed ID: 10519766 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography. Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Numerical Evaluation of Image Contrast for Thicker and Thinner Objects among Current Intraoral Digital Imaging Systems. Dashpuntsag O; Yoshida M; Kasai R; Maeda N; Hosoki H; Honda E Biomed Res Int; 2017; 2017():5215413. PubMed ID: 28497053 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Comparison of psychophysical properties of two intraoral digital sensors on low-contrast perceptibility. Shi XQ; Benchimol D; Nasstrom K Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(10):20130249. PubMed ID: 24404600 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]