136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29738006)
1. The effect of varying cone beam computed tomography image resolution and field-of-view centralization on effective radiation dose.
Jadu FM; Alzahrani AA; Almutairi MA; Al-Amoudi SO; Jan AM; Khafaji MA
Saudi Med J; 2018 May; 39(5):470-475. PubMed ID: 29738006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparative study of the effective radiation doses from cone beam computed tomography and plain radiography for sialography.
Jadu F; Yaffe MJ; Lam EW
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 Jul; 39(5):257-63. PubMed ID: 20587648
[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. 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]
5. The effect of optimum, indication-specific imaging fields on the radiation exposure from CBCT examinations of impacted maxillary canines and mandibular third molars.
Ilo AM; Waltimo-Sirén J; Pakbaznejad Esmaeili E; Ekholm M; Kortesniemi M
Acta Odontol Scand; 2024 Jan; 82(1):66-73. PubMed ID: 38058132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Convex triangular vs. cylindrical field of view: how does the shape of the FOV affect radiation dose?
Cascante-Sequeira D; Oliveira-Santos C; Brasil DM; Santaella GM; Swanson C; Blackburn M; Scarfe WC; Haiter-Neto F
Clin Oral Investig; 2023 Dec; 27(12):7881-7888. PubMed ID: 37993703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Dosimetry in CBCT with Different Protocols: Emphasis on Small FOVs Including Exams for TMJ.
Nascimento HAR; Andrade MEA; Frazão MAG; Nascimento EHL; Ramos-Perez FMM; Freitas DQ
Braz Dent J; 2017; 28(4):511-516. PubMed ID: 29160405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Optimizing effective dose and image quality in cone beam CT sialography.
Douglas DJ; Perschbacher SE; Moayedi M; Lam EWN
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2023 May; 135(5):686-697. PubMed ID: 36774241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Head and neck effective dose and quantitative assessment of image quality: a study to compare cone beam CT and multislice spiral CT.
Nardi C; Talamonti C; Pallotta S; Saletti P; Calistri L; Cordopatri C; Colagrande S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2017 Oct; 46(7):20170030. PubMed ID: 28511564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cone beam computed tomography radiation dose and image quality assessments.
Lofthag-Hansen S
Swed Dent J Suppl; 2010; (209):4-55. PubMed ID: 21229915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Radiation exposure in cone beam CT measured using a MOSFET and RPLGD dosimeter and Monte Carlo simulation in phantom.
Kweon DC
J Xray Sci Technol; 2023; 31(4):837-852. PubMed ID: 37248944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effective radiation dose and eye lens dose in dental cone beam CT: effect of field of view and angle of rotation.
Pauwels R; Zhang G; Theodorakou C; Walker A; Bosmans H; Jacobs R; Bogaerts R; Horner K;
Br J Radiol; 2014 Oct; 87(1042):20130654. PubMed ID: 25189417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of the dosimetry and centralization of scout-view function in CBCT.
Vilela DDS; Manhães Júnior LRC; Nascimento MDCC; Oenning ACC; Junqueira JLC; Martinez EF
Braz Dent J; 2022; 33(4):31-39. PubMed ID: 36043566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of adult and child radiation equivalent doses from 2 dental cone-beam computed tomography units.
Al Najjar A; Colosi D; Dauer LT; Prins R; Patchell G; Branets I; Goren AD; Faber RD
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Jun; 143(6):784-92. PubMed ID: 23726328
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry.
Roberts JA; Drage NA; Davies J; Thomas DW
Br J Radiol; 2009 Jan; 82(973):35-40. PubMed ID: 18852212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Cone beam computed tomography and low-dose multislice computed tomography in orthodontics and dentistry: a comparative evaluation on image quality and radiation exposure.
Hofmann E; Schmid M; Lell M; Hirschfelder U
J Orofac Orthop; 2014 Sep; 75(5):384-98. PubMed ID: 25158951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Dual-energy imaging method to improve the image quality and the accuracy of dose calculation for cone-beam computed tomography.
Men K; Dai J; Chen X; Li M; Zhang K; Huang P
Phys Med; 2017 Apr; 36():110-118. PubMed ID: 28410679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A manufacturer's role in reducing the dose of cone beam computed tomography examinations: effect of beam filtration.
Ludlow JB
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2011 Feb; 40(2):115-22. PubMed ID: 21239575
[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]
