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 *

48 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2637875)

  • 1. Information gain at reduced exposure time using a prototype video-enhancement device.
    Miles DA; Van Dis ML; Peterson MG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1989 Aug; 18(3):100-4. PubMed ID: 2637875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Quantitative assessment of a new dental imaging system.
    Walker A; Horner K; Czajka J; Shearer AC; Wilson NH
    Br J Radiol; 1991 Jun; 64(762):529-36. PubMed ID: 2070184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Radiation dosage of a dental imaging system.
    Soh G; Loh FC; Chong YH
    Quintessence Int; 1993 Mar; 24(3):189-91. PubMed ID: 8511278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Video enhancement of dental radiographic films.
    Van Dis ML; Beck FM; Miles DA
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Aug; 68(2):226-31. PubMed ID: 2780023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Direct digital radiography in the dental office.
    Wenzel A; Gröndahl HG
    Int Dent J; 1995 Feb; 45(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 7607741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Optical densities of dental resin composites: a comparison of CCD, storage phosphor, and Ektaspeed plus radiographic film.
    Farman TT; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Goldsmith LJ
    Gen Dent; 1996; 44(6):532-7. PubMed ID: 9515395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Selenium-based digital radiography of the chest: radiologists' preference compared with film-screen radiographs.
    Floyd CE; Baker JA; Chotas HG; Delong DM; Ravin CE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Dec; 165(6):1353-8. PubMed ID: 7484562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Experimental study on image quality when using screens in mammography (author's transl)].
    Maurer HJ; Goos F
    Rofo; 1979 Mar; 130(3):347-51. PubMed ID: 155580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Exposure times at which dental xeroradiographs and radiographs have comparable optical density.
    Alexander JB; Andrews JD
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1988 Sep; 66(3):359-64. PubMed ID: 3174071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Performance tests for mammographic film-screen combinations: use of absolute techniques.
    Bor D; Akdur K
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2013; 19(5):360-70. PubMed ID: 23603122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Intraoral digital radiography.
    Alder ME
    Tex Dent J; 1995 Feb; 112(2):31-5. PubMed ID: 8633303
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Radiographic mottle and patient exposure in mammography.
    Barnes GT; Chakraborty DP
    Radiology; 1982 Dec; 145(3):815-21. PubMed ID: 7146416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [The measurement parameters in dental radiography: a comparison between traditional and digital technics].
    Lazzerini F; Minorati D; Nessi R; Gagliani M; Uslenghi CM
    Radiol Med; 1996 Apr; 91(4):364-9. PubMed ID: 8643845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of crossover exposure on radiographic image quality of screen-film systems.
    Doi K; Loo LN; Anderson TM; Frank PH
    Radiology; 1981 Jun; 139(3):707-14. PubMed ID: 7232738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Image quality assessment and radiation doses in intraoral radiography.
    Yakoumakis EN; Tierris CE; Stefanou EP; Phanourakis IG; Proukakis CC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Mar; 91(3):362-8. PubMed ID: 11250637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. In vitro perception of low-contrast features in digital, film, and digitized dental radiographs: a receiver operating characteristic analysis.
    Grassl U; Schulze RK
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2007 May; 103(5):694-701. PubMed ID: 17466887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Image contrast in various cassette-screen-film combinations].
    Barth HH; Grasser H
    Dtsch Zahnarztl Z; 1985 Dec; 40(12):1230-4. PubMed ID: 3869536
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 35-mm film scanner as an intraoral dental radiograph digitizer. I: A quantitative evaluation.
    Shrout MK; Potter BJ; Yurgalavage HM; Hildebolt CF; Vannier MW
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1993 Oct; 76(4):502-9. PubMed ID: 8233432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.