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 *

91 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27068317)

  • 21. Sens-A-Ray characteristics with variations in beam quality.
    Harada T; Nishikawa K; Shibuya H; Hayakawa Y; Kuroyanagi K
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1995 Jul; 80(1):120-3. PubMed ID: 7552852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Some characteristics of solid-state and photo-stimulable phosphor detectors for intra-oral radiography.
    Borg E
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1999; 139():i-viii, 1-67. PubMed ID: 10635104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The role of direct intraoral sensors in the provision of endodontic services.
    Lavelle CL
    Endod Dent Traumatol; 1999 Feb; 15(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 10219147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Effect of bit depth and kVp of digital radiography for detection of subtle differences.
    Heo MS; Choi DH; Benavides E; Huh KH; Yi WJ; Lee SS; Choi SC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Aug; 108(2):278-83. PubMed ID: 19272812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The effect of anatomical noise on perception of low contrast in intra-oral radiographs: an in vitro study.
    Olsson L; Nilsson M; Svenson B; Hellén-Halme K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(4):20150402. PubMed ID: 26891747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Is digital better in dental radiography?
    Zdesar U; Fortuna T; Valantic B; Skrk D
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):138-9. PubMed ID: 18375462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Digital imaging for dental caries.
    Wenzel A
    Dent Clin North Am; 2000 Apr; 44(2):319-38, vi. PubMed ID: 10740771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging.
    Samei E; Dobbins JT; Lo JY; Tornai MP
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):220-9. PubMed ID: 15933112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A comparison of two intraoral CCD sensor systems in terms of image quality and interobserver agreement.
    Schulze D; Rother UJ; Fuhrmann AW; Tietke M
    Int J Comput Dent; 2003 Apr; 6(2):141-50. PubMed ID: 14552151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. RVG-ui: a sensor to rival direct-exposure intra-oral x-ray film.
    Farman AG; Farman TT
    Int J Comput Dent; 1999 Jul; 2(3):183-96. PubMed ID: 11351483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The influence of the X-ray spectrum at compact bone-titanium interfaces in digital dental radiography.
    Nicopoulou-Karayianni K; Koligliatis T; Donta-Bakogianni C; Karayiannis A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2006 Nov; 35(6):426-31. PubMed ID: 17082334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Automated tube voltage selection in thoracoabdominal computed tomography at high pitch using a third-generation dual-source scanner: image quality and radiation dose performance.
    Lurz M; Lell MM; Wuest W; Eller A; Scharf M; Uder M; May MS
    Invest Radiol; 2015 May; 50(5):352-60. PubMed ID: 25591129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effects of different exposure values on diagnostic accuracy of digital images.
    Pfeiffer P; Schmage P; Nergiz I; Platzer U
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Apr; 31(4):257-60. PubMed ID: 11203933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Sensitometric response of the Sens-A-Ray, a charge-coupled imaging device, to changes in beam energy.
    Goshima T; Goshima Y; Scarfe WC; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Jan; 25(1):17-8. PubMed ID: 9084280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effect of K-shell absorption edge filters on image quality in digital intraoral radiography.
    Shibuya H; Nishikawa K; Kuroyanagi K
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2000 Sep; 90(3):377-84. PubMed ID: 10982962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
    Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
    Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Diagnostic imaging of spinal deformities: reducing patients radiation dose with a new slot-scanning X-ray imager.
    Deschênes S; Charron G; Beaudoin G; Labelle H; Dubois J; Miron MC; Parent S
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Apr; 35(9):989-94. PubMed ID: 20228703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Analysis of the reproducibility of the gray values and noise of a direct digital radiography system.
    Poleti ML; Fernandes TM; Teixeira RC; Capelozza AL; Rubira-Bullen IR
    Braz Oral Res; 2015; 29():. PubMed ID: 26017488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. An objective comparison of four digital intra-oral radiographic systems: sensitometric properties and resolution.
    Araki K; Endo A; Okano T
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Mar; 29(2):76-80. PubMed ID: 10808219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.