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 *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27103603)

  • 1. Image quality evaluation of eight complementary metal-oxide semiconductor intraoral digital X-ray sensors.
    Teich S; Al-Rawi W; Heima M; Faddoul FF; Goldzweig G; Gutmacher Z; Aizenbud D
    Int Dent J; 2016 Oct; 66(5):264-71. PubMed ID: 27103603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of physical properties of different digital intraoral sensors.
    Al-Rawi W; Teich S
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2013 Sep; 34(8):e76-83. PubMed ID: 24568289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of complementary metal oxide semiconductor and charge-coupled device intraoral X-ray detectors using subjective image quality.
    Kitagawa H; Scheetz JP; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):408-11. PubMed ID: 15070845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Intraoral detectors. CCD, CMOS, TFT, and other devices.
    Sanderink GC; Miles DA
    Dent Clin North Am; 2000 Apr; 44(2):249-55, v. PubMed ID: 10740767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Intraoral versus extraoral bitewing radiography in detection of enamel proximal caries: an ex vivo study.
    Abu El-Ela WH; Farid MM; Mostafa MS
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(4):20150326. PubMed ID: 26892946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of the performance of intraoral X-ray sensors using objective image quality assessment.
    Hellén-Halme K; Johansson C; Nilsson M
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2016 May; 121(5):e129-37. PubMed ID: 27068317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of beam energy and filtration on the signal-to-noise ratio of the Dexis intraoral X-ray detector.
    Kitagawa H; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):21-4. PubMed ID: 15140818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Contrast curves of five different intraoral X-ray sensors: a technical note.
    Brüllmann DD; Kempkes B; d'Hoedt B; Schulze R
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2013 Jun; 115(6):e55-61. PubMed ID: 23706925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Imaging modalities for dental implants: DEXIS digital radiography.
    Garg AK
    Dent Implantol Update; 2007 Oct; 18(10):73-7. PubMed ID: 17953276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Current practice in conventional and digital intraoral radiography: problems and solutions.
    Fuhrmann AW
    Int J Comput Dent; 2006 Jan; 9(1):61-8. PubMed ID: 16608054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. A comparative study on image quality of two digital intraoral sensors.
    Aziman C; Hellén-Halme K; Shi XQ
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2019 Oct; 48(7):20190063. PubMed ID: 31075041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Criteria for the assessment of intrinsic performances of digital radiographic intraoral sensors.
    Mondou D; Bonnet E; Coudert JL; Jourlin M; Molteni R; Pachod V
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Sep; 3(9):751-7. PubMed ID: 8883516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Assessment of image quality and exposure parameters of an intraoral portable X-rays device.
    Zenóbio EG; Zenóbio MA; Azevedo CD; Nogueira MDS; Almeida CD; Manzi FR
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2019 Mar; 48(3):20180329. PubMed ID: 30426762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of older and newer versions of intraoral digital radiography systems: diagnosing noncavitated proximal carious lesions.
    Haiter-Neto F; dos Anjos Pontual A; Frydenberg M; Wenzel A
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 Oct; 138(10):1353-9; quiz 1382-3. PubMed ID: 17908850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of five radiographic systems to D-speed film in the detection of artificial bone lesions.
    Hadley DL; Replogle KJ; Kirkam JC; Best AM
    J Endod; 2008 Sep; 34(9):1111-4. PubMed ID: 18718376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Stationary intraoral digital tomosynthesis using a carbon nanotube X-ray source array.
    Shan J; Tucker AW; Gaalaas LR; Wu G; Platin E; Mol A; Lu J; Zhou O
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(9):20150098. PubMed ID: 26090933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Radiographic endodontic working length estimation: comparison of three digital image receptors.
    Athar A; Angelopoulos C; Katz JO; Williams KB; Spencer P
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2008 Oct; 106(4):604-8. PubMed ID: 18718798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.