372 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28584324)
1. Absorbed doses for patients undergoing panoramic radiography, cephalometric radiography and CBCT.
Wrzesień M; Olszewski J
Int J Occup Med Environ Health; 2017 Jul; 30(5):705-713. PubMed ID: 28584324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Cone beam computed tomography for dental and maxillofacial imaging: technique improvement and low-dose protocols.
Feragalli B; Rampado O; Abate C; Macrì M; Festa F; Stromei F; Caputi S; Guglielmi G
Radiol Med; 2017 Aug; 122(8):581-588. PubMed ID: 28365888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Using GafChromic film to estimate the effective dose from dental cone beam CT and panoramic radiography.
Al-Okshi A; Nilsson M; Petersson A; Wiese M; Lindh C
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(7):20120343. PubMed ID: 23610090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dosimetry of the cone beam computed tomography Veraviewepocs 3D compared with the 3D Accuitomo in different fields of view.
Hirsch E; Wolf U; Heinicke F; Silva MA
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Jul; 37(5):268-73. PubMed ID: 18606748
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation.
Silva MA; Wolf U; Heinicke F; Bumann A; Visser H; Hirsch E
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2008 May; 133(5):640.e1-5. PubMed ID: 18456133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Dosimetry of two extraoral direct digital imaging devices: NewTom cone beam CT and Orthophos Plus DS panoramic unit.
Ludlow JB; Davies-Ludlow LE; Brooks SL
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Jul; 32(4):229-34. PubMed ID: 13679353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Significant reduction in dental cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) eye dose through the use of leaded glasses.
Prins R; Dauer LT; Colosi DC; Quinn B; Kleiman NJ; Bohle GC; Holohan B; Al-Najjar A; Fernandez T; Bonvento M; Faber RD; Ching H; Goren AD
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2011 Oct; 112(4):502-7. PubMed ID: 21802322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Radiation dose of cone-beam computed tomography compared to conventional radiographs in orthodontics.
Signorelli L; Patcas R; Peltomäki T; Schätzle M
J Orofac Orthop; 2016 Jan; 77(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 26747662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. ESTIMATION OF EFFECTIVE DOSE OF DENTAL X-RAY DEVICES.
Qiang W; Qiang F; Lin L
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Jun; 183(4):417-421. PubMed ID: 30169836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Radiation-absorbed doses and energy imparted from panoramic tomography, cephalometric radiography, and occlusal film radiography in children.
Bankvall G; Håkansson HA
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1982 May; 53(5):532-40. PubMed ID: 6954429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reduction of absorbed doses to the thyroid gland in orthodontic treatment planning by reducing the area of irradiation.
Svenson B; Sjöholm B; Jonsson B
Swed Dent J; 2004; 28(3):137-47. PubMed ID: 15506691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Can modifying shielding, field of view, and exposure settings make the effective dose of a cone-beam computed tomography comparable to traditional radiographs used for orthodontic diagnosis?
Ting S; Attaia D; Johnson KB; Kossa SS; Friedland B; Allareddy V; Masoud MI
Angle Orthod; 2020 Sep; 90(5):655-664. PubMed ID: 33378479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effective dosages for recording Veraviewepocs dental panoramic images: analog film, digital, and panoramic scout for CBCT.
Garcia Silva MA; Wolf U; Heinicke F; Gründler K; Visser H; Hirsch E
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2008 Oct; 106(4):571-7. PubMed ID: 18602314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Absorbed organ and effective doses from digital intra-oral and panoramic radiography applying the ICRP 103 recommendations for effective dose estimations.
Granlund C; Thilander-Klang A; Ylhan B; Lofthag-Hansen S; Ekestubbe A
Br J Radiol; 2016 Oct; 89(1066):20151052. PubMed ID: 27452261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Dose reduction in maxillofacial imaging using low dose Cone Beam CT.
Tsiklakis K; Donta C; Gavala S; Karayianni K; Kamenopoulou V; Hourdakis CJ
Eur J Radiol; 2005 Dec; 56(3):413-7. PubMed ID: 15978765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of radiation dose for implant imaging using conventional spiral tomography, computed tomography, and cone-beam computed tomography.
Chau AC; Fung K
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Apr; 107(4):559-65. PubMed ID: 19168378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
