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 *

67 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24404600)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Comparison of psychophysical properties of two intraoral digital sensors on low-contrast perceptibility.
    Shi XQ; Benchimol D; Näsström K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(10):20130249. PubMed ID: 24170798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after correction for attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response.
    Li G; Welander U; Yoshiura K; Shi XQ; McDavid WD
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):372-8. PubMed ID: 15070839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Perceptibility curve test for conventional and colour-coded radiographs.
    Shi XQ; Li G; Yoshiura K; Welander U
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Sep; 33(5):318-22. PubMed ID: 15585809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Psychophysical properties of a new F-speed intraoral film.
    Mastoris M; Yoshiura K; Welander U; Tsiklakis K; Papadakis E; Li G
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 May; 33(3):158-63. PubMed ID: 15371315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of the psychophysical properties of various intraoral film and digital systems by means of the perceptibility curve test.
    Yoshiura K; Welander U; McDavid WD; Li G; Shi XQ; Nakayama E; Shimizu M; Okamura K; Kanda S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Mar; 33(2):98-102. PubMed ID: 15314001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Evaluation of physical properties of different digital intraoral sensors.
    Al-Rawi W; Teich S
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2013 Sep; 34(8):e76-83. PubMed ID: 24568289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Conventional and predicted perceptibility curves for contrast-enhanced direct digital intraoral radiographs.
    Yoshiura K; Welander U; Shi XQ; Li G; Kawazu T; Tatsumi M; Okamura K; McDavid WD; Kanda S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Jul; 30(4):219-25. PubMed ID: 11681484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after application of various image processing algorithms.
    Alpöz E; Soğur E; Baksi Akdeniz BG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Dec; 36(8):490-4. PubMed ID: 18033946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Perceptibility curves for the Digora system.
    Yoshiura K; Welander U; McDavid WD; Li G; Shi XQ; Kawazu T; Tatsumi M; Matsuo T; Kanda S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 May; 32(3):191-7. PubMed ID: 12917286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Signal-to-noise ratios of 6 intraoral digital sensors.
    Attaelmanan AG; Borg E; Gröndahl HG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 May; 91(5):611-5. PubMed ID: 11346743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 2: optimum exposure conditions for detection of small mass changes in 6 intraoral radiography systems.
    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):123-9. PubMed ID: 9927091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparative study on image quality of two digital intraoral sensors.
    Aziman C; Hellén-Halme K; Shi XQ
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2019 Oct; 48(7):20190063. PubMed ID: 31075041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Perceptibility of defects in an aluminum test object: a comparison of the RVG-S and first generation VIXA systems with and without added niobium filtration.
    Wakoh M; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Kelly MS; Kuroyanagi K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Nov; 24(4):211-4. PubMed ID: 9161163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.