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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2648244)

  • 1. An improved head-and-neck phantom for radiation dosimetry.
    Brand JW; Kuba RK; Braunreiter TC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Mar; 67(3):338-46. PubMed ID: 2648244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Radiation dosimetry in specific area radiography.
    Brand JW; Kuba RK; Aeppli DM; Johnson JC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Mar; 67(3):347-53. PubMed ID: 2648245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of radiation levels from computed tomography and conventional dental radiographs.
    Ngan DC; Kharbanda OP; Geenty JP; Darendeliler MA
    Aust Orthod J; 2003 Nov; 19(2):67-75. PubMed ID: 14703331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Absorbed dose determination for tomographic implant site assessment techniques.
    Kassebaum DK; Stoller NE; McDavid WD; Goshorn B; Ahrens CR
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1992 Apr; 73(4):502-9. PubMed ID: 1574314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Efficacy of lead foil for reducing doses in the head and neck: a simulation study using digital intraoral systems.
    Nejaim Y; Silva AI; Brasil DM; Vasconcelos KF; Haiter Neto F; Boscolo FN
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(8):20150065. PubMed ID: 26084474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Radiobiologic risk estimation from dental radiology. Part I. Absorbed doses to critical organs.
    Underhill TE; Chilvarquer I; Kimura K; Langlais RP; McDavid WD; Preece JW; Barnwell G
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1988 Jul; 66(1):111-20. PubMed ID: 3165508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of x-radiation doses between conventional and rare earth panoramic radiographic techniques.
    Skoczylas LJ; Preece JW; Langlais RP; McDavid WD; Waggener RG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Dec; 68(6):776-81. PubMed ID: 2594329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Doses to patients from pantomographic and conventional dental radiography.
    Wall BF; Fisher ES; Paynter R; Hudson A; Bird PD
    Br J Radiol; 1979 Sep; 52(621):727-34. PubMed ID: 476387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Radiation doses during panoramic zonography, linear tomography and plain film radiography of maxillo-facial skeleton. A comparative study.
    Paukku P; Göthlin J; Tötterman S; Servomaa A; Hallikainen D
    Eur J Radiol; 1983 Aug; 3(3):239-41. PubMed ID: 6628408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of adult and child radiation equivalent doses from 2 dental cone-beam computed tomography units.
    Al Najjar A; Colosi D; Dauer LT; Prins R; Patchell G; Branets I; Goren AD; Faber RD
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Jun; 143(6):784-92. PubMed ID: 23726328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Dosimetric measurement of scattered radiation from dental implants in simulated head and neck radiotherapy.
    Wang R; Pillai K; Jones PK
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1998; 13(2):197-203. PubMed ID: 9581405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Dosimetry of a cone-beam computed tomography machine compared with a digital x-ray machine in orthodontic imaging.
    Grünheid T; Kolbeck Schieck JR; Pliska BT; Ahmad M; Larson BE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Apr; 141(4):436-43. PubMed ID: 22464525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography.
    Lecomber AR; Yoneyama Y; Lovelock DJ; Hosoi T; Adams AM
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Sep; 30(5):255-9. PubMed ID: 11571544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effective radiation dose of ProMax 3D cone-beam computerized tomography scanner with different dental protocols.
    Qu XM; Li G; Ludlow JB; Zhang ZY; Ma XC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Dec; 110(6):770-6. PubMed ID: 20952220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Optimisation of patient doses in programmable dental panoramic radiography.
    Lecomber AR; Downes SL; Mokhtari M; Faulkner K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Mar; 29(2):107-12. PubMed ID: 10808225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparative dose measurements by spiral tomography for preimplant diagnosis: the Scanora machine versus the Cranex Tome radiography unit.
    Dula K; Mini R; van der Stelt PF; Sanderink GC; Schneeberger P; Buser D
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Jun; 91(6):735-42. PubMed ID: 11402291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Paediatric absorbed doses from rotational panoramic radiography.
    Hayakawa Y; Kobayashi N; Kuroyanagi K; Nishizawa K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Sep; 30(5):285-92. PubMed ID: 11571549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Radiation doses of commonly used dental radiographic surveys.
    Freeman JP; Brand JW
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Mar; 77(3):285-9. PubMed ID: 8170662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparative dose evaluations between XVI and OBI cone beam CT systems using Gafchromic XRQA2 film and nanoDot optical stimulated luminescence dosimeters.
    Giaddui T; Cui Y; Galvin J; Yu Y; Xiao Y
    Med Phys; 2013 Jun; 40(6):062102. PubMed ID: 23718600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Absorbed doses and energy imparted from radiographic examination of velopharyngeal function during speech.
    Isberg A; Julin P; Kraepelien T; Henrikson CO
    Cleft Palate J; 1989 Apr; 26(2):105-9. PubMed ID: 2706778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.