91 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24908604)
1. Comparison of consumer grade, tablet and 6MP-displays: observer performance in detection of anatomical and pathological structures in panoramic radiographs.
Kallio-Pulkkinen S; Haapea M; Liukkonen E; Huumonen S; Tervonen O; Nieminen MT
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2014 Jul; 118(1):135-41. PubMed ID: 24908604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison between DICOM-calibrated and uncalibrated consumer grade and 6-MP displays under different lighting conditions in panoramic radiography.
Kallio-Pulkkinen S; Haapea M; Liukkonen E; Huumonen S; Tervonen O; Nieminen MT
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(5):20140365. PubMed ID: 25564888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effect of display type, DICOM calibration and room illuminance in bitewing radiographs.
Kallio-Pulkkinen S; Huumonen S; Haapea M; Liukkonen E; Sipola A; Tervonen O; Nieminen MT
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(1):20150129. PubMed ID: 26234536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of display type and room illuminance in chest radiographs.
Liukkonen E; Jartti A; Haapea M; Oikarinen H; Ahvenjärvi L; Mattila S; Nevala T; Palosaari K; Perhomaa M; Nieminen MT
Eur Radiol; 2016 Sep; 26(9):3171-9. PubMed ID: 26662032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. ROC study of four LCD displays under typical medical center lighting conditions.
Langer S; Fetterly K; Mandrekar J; Harmsen S; Bartholmai B; Patton C; Bishop A; McCannel C
J Digit Imaging; 2006 Mar; 19(1):30-40. PubMed ID: 16249836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A clinical evaluation of some factors affecting image quality in panoramic radiography.
Kaeppler G; Axmann-Krcmar D; Reuter I; Meyle J; Gómez-Román G
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Mar; 29(2):81-4. PubMed ID: 10808220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of dose reduction in digital dental panoramic radiography on image quality.
Dannewitz B; Hassfeld S; Eickholz P; Mühling J
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Jan; 31(1):50-5. PubMed ID: 11803389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Diagnostic utility of thermal printed panographs compared with corresponding computer monitor images.
Guerrant GH; Moore WS; Murchison DF
Gen Dent; 2001; 49(2):190-6; quiz 197-8. PubMed ID: 12004700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Detection of cervical spine fracture on computed radiography images a monitor resolution study.
Awan O; Safdar NM; Siddiqui KM; Moffitt R; Siegel EL
Acad Radiol; 2011 Mar; 18(3):353-8. PubMed ID: 21215662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. On-axis and off-axis viewing of images on CRT displays and LCDs: observer performance and vision model predictions.
Krupinski EA; Johnson J; Roehrig H; Nafziger J; Lubin J
Acad Radiol; 2005 Aug; 12(8):957-64. PubMed ID: 16023384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. DICOM gray-scale standard display function: clinical diagnostic accuracy of chest radiography in medical-grade gray-scale and consumer-grade color displays.
Salazar AJ; Aguirre DA; Ocampo J; Camacho JC; Díaz XA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jun; 202(6):1272-80. PubMed ID: 24848825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Evaluation of the perceptional performance of high resolution flat panel displays].
Araki Y; Sanada S; Kobayashi T; Hashimoto N; Funabasama S
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2005 Aug; 61(8):1151-7. PubMed ID: 16132034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of medical-grade and calibrated consumer-grade displays for diagnosis of subtle bone fissures.
Pinto Dos Santos D; Welter J; Emrich T; Jungmann F; Dappa E; Mildenberger P; Kloeckner R
Eur Radiol; 2017 Dec; 27(12):5049-5055. PubMed ID: 28660305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs.
Goo JM; Choi JY; Im JG; Lee HJ; Chung MJ; Han D; Park SH; Kim JH; Nam SH
Radiology; 2004 Sep; 232(3):762-6. PubMed ID: 15273338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Influence of interpretation conditions on the subjective differentiation of radiographic contrast of images obtained with a digital intraoral system.
Lima CAS; Freitas DQ; Ambrosano GMB; Haiter-Neto F; Oliveira ML
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2019 May; 127(5):444-450. PubMed ID: 30738753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An evaluation of image quality for the assessment of the marginal bone level in panoramic radiography. A comparison of radiographs from different dental clinics.
Akesson L; Håkansson J; Rohlin M; Zöger B
Swed Dent J; 1993; 17(1-2):9-21. PubMed ID: 8362363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Flat-panel display (LCD) versus high-resolution gray-scale display (CRT) for chest radiography: an observer preference study.
Balassy C; Prokop M; Weber M; Sailer J; Herold CJ; Schaefer-Prokop C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Mar; 184(3):752-6. PubMed ID: 15728593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of liquid crystal display monitors calibrated with gray-scale standard display function and with γ 2.2 and iPad: observer performance in detection of cerebral infarction on brain CT.
Yoshimura K; Nihashi T; Ikeda M; Ando Y; Kawai H; Kawakami K; Kimura R; Okada Y; Okochi Y; Ota N; Tsuchiya K; Naganawa S
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Jun; 200(6):1304-9. PubMed ID: 23701069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [The value and limits of the interpretation of panoramic radiographs in forensic dentistry].
Evenot M; Midavaine A; Bert J; Boyer B; Schnepp A
Acta Med Leg Soc (Liege); 1989; 39(1):365-70. PubMed ID: 2520716
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. [A comparison of the monitor and alternator findings of digital thoracic images with the aid of a computer-supported procedure].
Heckermann D; Fink U; Schätzl M; Fink B; Kenn W; Miller P; Pistitsch C; Herrmann K; Reiser M
Rofo; 1998 Jul; 169(1):38-44. PubMed ID: 9711281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
