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.
115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 292313)
41. The effect of image quality on the identification of cephalometric landmarks. McWilliam JS; Welander U Angle Orthod; 1978 Jan; 48(1):49-56. PubMed ID: 272131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Exposure reduction in cephalography with a digital photostimulable phosphor imaging system. Seki K; Okano T Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1993 Aug; 22(3):127-30. PubMed ID: 8299830 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Patient exposures from film and xeroradiographic mammographic techniques. Rothenberg LN; Kirch RL; Snyder RE Radiology; 1975 Dec; 117(3 Pt 1):701-3. PubMed ID: 1188121 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Frequency of artifacts with xeroradiography using artifact-reduction techniques. Gratt BM; Sickles EA; Littman RI Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1986 Nov; 62(5):589-94. PubMed ID: 3466131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. A cephalometric appraisal of xeroradiography. Chate RA Am J Orthod; 1980 May; 77(5):547-67. PubMed ID: 6929162 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Imaging properties of intraoral dental xeroradiography. Gratt BM; White SC; Sickles EA; Jeromin LS J Am Dent Assoc; 1979 Nov; 99(5):805-9. PubMed ID: 290676 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Uroradiographic dosimetry using a rare-earth screen-film system. Segal AJ; Maillie HD; Lemkin JA AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1982 Nov; 139(5):923-6. PubMed ID: 6981976 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Orthodontic radiographic procedures--how safe are they? Buch B; Fensham R SADJ; 2003 Feb; 58(1):6-10. PubMed ID: 12705098 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Radiation dosage from use of the image intensifier in orthopaedic surgery. Lo NN; Goh PS; Khong KS Singapore Med J; 1996 Feb; 37(1):69-71. PubMed ID: 8783918 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. [Perceptibility of details in conventional and digital teleradiography--a comparative study]. Ruppenthal T; Doll G; Sergl HG; Fricke B Orthod Fr; 1991; 62 Pt 3():1033-42. PubMed ID: 1842243 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. [Radiation exposure of the patient exemplified by lateral cranial image in digital luminescence radiography in comparison with the film-screen system]. Seifert H; Kubale R; Blass G; Kunz G; Wagner P; Kramann B; Leetz HK Rontgenpraxis; 1995 Oct; 48(10):298-303. PubMed ID: 7502166 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. Computed and conventional chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and radiation dose. Ramli K; Abdullah BJ; Ng KH; Mahmud R; Hussain AF Australas Radiol; 2005 Dec; 49(6):460-6. PubMed ID: 16351609 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Xeroradiography of dental structures. IV. Image properties of a dedicated intraoral system. Gratt BM; Sickles EA; Gould RG; Jeromin LS; White SC Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1980 Dec; 50(6):572-9. PubMed ID: 6935616 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. [A comparative study of the possibility of reducing the dosage in lateral teleradiographs]. Ruppenthal T; Fricke B; Sergl HG; Doll G Fortschr Kieferorthop; 1992 Feb; 53(1):40-8. PubMed ID: 1551627 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Evaluation of surface and superficial dose for head and neck treatments using conventional or intensity-modulated techniques. Higgins PD; Han EY; Yuan JL; Hui S; Lee CK Phys Med Biol; 2007 Feb; 52(4):1135-46. PubMed ID: 17264375 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]