51 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25687195)
1. The effect of calibration and detector temperature on the reconstructed cone beam computed tomography image quality: a study for the workflow of the iCAT Classic equipment.
Plachtovics M; Goczan J; Nagy K
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2015 Apr; 119(4):473-80. PubMed ID: 25687195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. High-quality image acquisition by double exposure overlap in dental cone beam computed tomography.
Plachtovics M; Bujtar P; Nagy K; Mommaerts M
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2014 Jun; 117(6):760-7. PubMed ID: 24736110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Geometric calibration of a mobile C-arm for intraoperative cone-beam CT.
Daly MJ; Siewerdsen JH; Cho YB; Jaffray DA; Irish JC
Med Phys; 2008 May; 35(5):2124-36. PubMed ID: 18561688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Online geometric calibration of cone-beam computed tomography for arbitrary imaging objects.
Meng Y; Gong H; Yang X
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2013 Feb; 32(2):278-88. PubMed ID: 23076032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Ultra-low-dose computed tomography system with a flat panel detector: assessment of radiation dose reduction and spatial and low contrast resolution.
Nagatani Y; Nitta N; Takahashi M; Tezuka N; Nakano Y; Ikeda M; Kirino Y; Hashimoto K; Otani H; Murakami Y; Murata K
Radiat Med; 2008 Dec; 26(10):627-35. PubMed ID: 19132496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The effect of surrounding conditions on pixel value of cone beam computed tomography.
Araki K; Okano T
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Aug; 24(8):862-5. PubMed ID: 22092375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Investigation on the 3 D geometric accuracy and on the image quality (MTF, SNR and NPS) of volume tomography units (CT, CBCT and DVT)].
Blendl C; Fiebich M; Voigt JM; Selbach M; Uphoff C
Rofo; 2012 Jan; 184(1):24-31. PubMed ID: 22076796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. High-quality 3D correction of ring and radiant artifacts in flat panel detector-based cone beam volume CT imaging.
Anas EM; Kim JG; Lee SY; Hasan MK
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Oct; 56(19):6495-519. PubMed ID: 21934193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of methods for acceptance and constancy testing in dental cone-beam computed tomography.
Steiding C; Kolditz D; Kalender W
Rofo; 2015 Apr; 187(4):283-90. PubMed ID: 25389669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of scatter on reconstructed image quality in cone beam computed tomography: evaluation of a scatter-reduction optimisation function.
Malusek A; Seger MM; Sandborg M; Alm Carlsson G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):337-40. PubMed ID: 15933133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Relationship between density variability and imaging volume size in cone-beam computerized tomographic scanning of the maxillofacial region: an in vitro study.
Katsumata A; Hirukawa A; Okumura S; Naitoh M; Fujishita M; Ariji E; Langlais RP
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Mar; 107(3):420-5. PubMed ID: 18715805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Development and implementation of a low-cost phantom for quality control in cone beam computed tomography.
Batista WO; Navarro MV; Maia AF
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Dec; 157(4):552-60. PubMed ID: 23838096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Quality assurance for the geometric accuracy of cone-beam CT guidance in radiation therapy.
Bissonnette JP; Moseley D; White E; Sharpe M; Purdie T; Jaffray DA
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2008; 71(1 Suppl):S57-61. PubMed ID: 18406939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Prediction of detectability of the mandibular canal by quantitative image quality evaluation using cone beam CT.
Takeshita Y; Shimizu M; Jasa GR; Weerawanich W; Okamura K; Yoshida S; Tokumori K; Asaumi J; Yoshiura K
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2018 May; 47(4):20170369. PubMed ID: 29376745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Dosimetric evaluation of dental implant planning examinations with cone-beam computed tomography.
Andrade ME; Khoury HJ; Nascimento Neto JB; Kramer R
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2014 Jan; 158(2):175-80. PubMed ID: 24043877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The effects of field-of-view and patient size on CT numbers from cone-beam computed tomography.
Seet KY; Barghi A; Yartsev S; Van Dyk J
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Oct; 54(20):6251-62. PubMed ID: 19794246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Dose calculation on kV cone beam CT images: an investigation of the Hu-density conversion stability and dose accuracy using the site-specific calibration.
Rong Y; Smilowitz J; Tewatia D; Tomé WA; Paliwal B
Med Dosim; 2010; 35(3):195-207. PubMed ID: 19931031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparing the image quality of a mobile flat-panel computed tomography and a multidetector computed tomography: a phantom study.
Neubauer J; Voigt JM; Lang H; Scheuer C; Goerke SM; Langer M; Fiebich M; Kotter E
Invest Radiol; 2014 Jul; 49(7):491-7. PubMed ID: 24637586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Scatter kernel estimation with an edge-spread function method for cone-beam computed tomography imaging.
Li H; Mohan R; Zhu XR
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Dec; 53(23):6729-48. PubMed ID: 18997269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Dual helical cone-beam CT for inspecting large object.
Zou X; Zeng L; Li Z
J Xray Sci Technol; 2009; 17(3):233-51. PubMed ID: 19893215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
