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.
6. As Low Dose as Sufficient Quality: Optimization of Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Scanning Protocol for Tooth Autotransplantation Planning and Follow-up in Children. EzEldeen M; Stratis A; Coucke W; Codari M; Politis C; Jacobs R J Endod; 2017 Feb; 43(2):210-217. PubMed ID: 28027823 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Reliability and accuracy of cone beam computed tomography versus conventional multidetector computed tomography for image-guided craniofacial implant planning: An in vitro study. Dings JP; Verhamme L; Merkx MA; Xi T; Meijer GJ; Maal TJ Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(3):665–672. PubMed ID: 30934042 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Visibility of anatomical landmarks in the region of the mandibular third molar, a comparison between a low-dose and default protocol of CBCT. Cederhag J; Iskanderani D; Alstergren P; Shi XQ; Hellén-Halme K Acta Odontol Scand; 2023 Aug; 81(6):449-455. PubMed ID: 36748228 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Influence of Low-Dose Protocols of CBCT on Dental Implant Planning. de Castro HS; Kehrwald R; Matheus RA; Gomes AF; Queiroz PM Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2021; 36(2):307-312. PubMed ID: 33909720 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cone-beam CT versus multi-slice CT systems for postoperative imaging of cochlear implantation--a phantom study on image quality and radiation exposure using human temporal bones. Theunisse HJ; Joemai RM; Maal TJ; Geleijns J; Mylanus EA; Verbist BM Otol Neurotol; 2015 Apr; 36(4):592-9. PubMed ID: 25420084 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Image quality assessment of three cone beam computed tomography scanners-an analysis of the visibility of anatomical landmarks. Baumann E; Bornstein MM; Dalstra M; Verna C; Dagassan-Berndt DC Eur J Orthod; 2022 Sep; 44(5):513-521. PubMed ID: 35366310 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of a low-dose protocol for cone beam computed tomography of the temporomandibular joint. Iskanderani D; Nilsson M; Alstergren P; Shi XQ; Hellen-Halme K Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2020 Sep; 49(6):20190495. PubMed ID: 32250642 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Efficacy of low-dose cone beam computed tomography and metal artifact reduction tool for assessment of peri-implant bone defects: an in vitro study. Nomier AS; Gaweesh YSE; Taalab MR; El Sadat SA BMC Oral Health; 2022 Dec; 22(1):615. PubMed ID: 36528573 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance of cone-beam computed tomography and multidetector computed tomography in diagnostic imaging of the midface: A comparative study on Phantom and cadaver head scans. Veldhoen S; Schöllchen M; Hanken H; Precht C; Henes FO; Schön G; Nagel HD; Schumacher U; Heiland M; Adam G; Regier M Eur Radiol; 2017 Feb; 27(2):790-800. PubMed ID: 27169574 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Quantification of bone quality using different cone beam computed tomography devices: Accuracy assessment for edentulous human mandibles. Van Dessel J; Nicolielo LF; Huang Y; Slagmolen P; Politis C; Lambrichts I; Jacobs R Eur J Oral Implantol; 2016; 9(4):411-424. PubMed ID: 27990508 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. Jacobs R; Salmon B; Codari M; Hassan B; Bornstein MM BMC Oral Health; 2018 May; 18(1):88. PubMed ID: 29764458 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]