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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26891747)

  • 21. In vitro comparison of four different dental X-ray films and direct digital radiography for proximal caries detection.
    Alkurt MT; Peker I; Bala O; Altunkaynak B
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):504-9. PubMed ID: 17910228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Physical properties of a photostimulable phosphor system for intra-oral radiography.
    Stamatakis HC; Welander U; McDavid WD
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):28-34. PubMed ID: 10654033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of system noise.
    Håkansson M; Båth M; Börjesson S; Kheddache S; Johnsson AA; Månsson LG
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):97-101. PubMed ID: 15933088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Comparison of technique errors of intraoral radiographs taken on film v photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plates.
    Zhang W; Huynh CP; Abramovitch K; Leon IL; Arvizu L
    Tex Dent J; 2012 Jun; 129(6):589-96. PubMed ID: 22866414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Detection of crestal radiolucencies around dental implants: an in vitro experimental study.
    Sirin Y; Horasan S; Yaman D; Basegmez C; Tanyel C; Aral A; Guven K
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Jul; 70(7):1540-50. PubMed ID: 22698290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Comparison between Scanora panoramic radiography and bitewing radiography in the assessment of marginal bone tissue.
    Ivanauskaite D; Lindh C; Rangne K; Rohlin M
    Stomatologija; 2006; 8(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 16687909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Evaluation of image quality parameters of representative intraoral digital radiographic systems.
    Udupa H; Mah P; Dove SB; McDavid WD
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2013 Dec; 116(6):774-83. PubMed ID: 24237729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The development of a new direct digital extra-oral radiographic system prototype using a thin-film transistor panel.
    Sakurai T; Matsuki T; Nakamura K; Kashima I; Lee DL; Cheung LK; Jeromin LS
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 May; 27(3):172-7. PubMed ID: 9693530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effect of image sharpening on radiographic image quality.
    Clark JL; Wadhwani CP; Abramovitch K; Rice DD; Kattadiyil MT
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):927-933. PubMed ID: 30166247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Cone beam computed tomography radiation dose and image quality assessments.
    Lofthag-Hansen S
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 2010; (209):4-55. PubMed ID: 21229915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The influence of anatomical noise on optimal beam quality in mammography.
    Cederström B; Fredenberg E
    Med Phys; 2014 Dec; 41(12):121903. PubMed ID: 25471963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Comparative study of two digital radiographic storage phosphor systems.
    Oliveira AE; de Almeida SM; Paganini GA; Haiter Neto F; Bóscolo FN
    Braz Dent J; 2000; 11(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 11210259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Assessment of trabecular pattern on periapical and panoramic radiographs: a pilot study.
    Pham D; Jonasson G; Kiliaridis S
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2010 Mar; 68(2):91-7. PubMed ID: 20085501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of anatomical noise.
    Båth M; Håkansson M; Börjesson S; Hoeschen C; Tischenko O; Kheddache S; Vikgren J; Månsson LG
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):109-13. PubMed ID: 15933090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The dynamic range of digital radiographic systems: dose reduction or risk of overexposure?
    Berkhout WE; Beuger DA; Sanderink GC; van der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 15140814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.