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 *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3041341)

  • 1. Film-holding instruments for intraoral subtraction radiography.
    Rudolph DJ; White SC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1988 Jun; 65(6):767-72. PubMed ID: 3041341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Use of a simple intraoral instrument to standardize film alignment and improve image reproducibility.
    Wu JC; Huang JN; Zhao SF; Xu XJ; Zhang JC; Xia B; Dong YF
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2005 Jul; 100(1):99-104. PubMed ID: 15953923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of stent versus laser- and cephalostat-aligned periapical film-positioning techniques for use in digital subtraction radiography.
    Ludlow JB; Peleaux CP
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Feb; 77(2):208-15. PubMed ID: 8139840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A Comparison of Technique Errors using Two Radiographic Intra-oral Receptor-holding Devices.
    Mauriello SM; Tang Q; Johnson KB; Hadgraft HH; Platin E
    J Dent Hyg; 2015 Dec; 89(6):384-9. PubMed ID: 26684996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. In vivo determination of radiographic projection errors produced by a novel filmholder and an x-ray beam manipulator.
    Zappa U; Simona C; Graf H; van Aken J
    J Periodontol; 1991 Nov; 62(11):674-83. PubMed ID: 1753320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An overview of radiographic film holders.
    Dixon DA; Hildebolt CF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2005 Mar; 34(2):67-73. PubMed ID: 15829687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A precise receptor-positioning device for subtraction radiography, based on cross-arch stabilization.
    Couture RA; Dixon DA; Hildebolt CF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2005 Jul; 34(4):231-6. PubMed ID: 15961598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effect of independent film and object rotation on projective geometric standardization of dental radiographs.
    Fisher E; van der Stelt PF; Ostuni J; Dunn SM
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Feb; 24(1):5-12. PubMed ID: 8593908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Influence of geometric distortion and exposure parameters on sensitivity of digital subtraction radiography.
    Rudolph DJ; White SC; Mankovich NJ
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1987 Nov; 64(5):631-7. PubMed ID: 3313154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Diagnosis of alveolar bone changes with digital subtraction images and conventional radiographs. An in vitro study.
    Nicopoulou-Karayianni K; Brägger U; Bürgin W; Nielsen PM; Lang NP
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1991 Aug; 72(2):251-6. PubMed ID: 1923405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Standardized lateral oblique projection of the mandible for digital subtraction radiography.
    Araki K; Kitamori H; Yoshiura K; Okuda H; Ohki M
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1992 May; 21(2):88-92. PubMed ID: 1397463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Efficacy of a new software in eliminating the angulation errors in digital subtraction radiography.
    Güneri P; Göğüş S; Tuğsel Z; Boyacioğlu H
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Dec; 36(8):484-9. PubMed ID: 18033945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A method to reduce interproximal overlapping and improve reproducibility of bitewing radiographs for use in clinical trials.
    McDonald SP
    Community Dent Oral Epidemiol; 1983 Oct; 11(5):289-95. PubMed ID: 6578897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Validation of quantitative digital subtraction radiography using the electronically guided alignment device/impression technique.
    Hausmann E; Allen K; Loza J; Buchanan W; Cavanaugh PF
    J Periodontol; 1996 Sep; 67(9):895-9. PubMed ID: 8884647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Measurement accuracy: a comparison of two intra-oral digital radiographic systems, RadioVisiography-S and FlashDent, with analog film.
    Scarfe WC; Norton S; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Nov; 24(4):215-20. PubMed ID: 9161164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Efficacy of a newly designed angulation-adjustable film holder for reducing cone-cutting errors and saving time in horizontal tube-shift technique by dental students.
    Puapichartdumrong P; Eakpunyakul N; Tanpumiprathet S; Khueankaew P; Saelim P; Piyapattamin T
    Heliyon; 2022 Nov; 8(11):e11567. PubMed ID: 36406705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of two film holders for periapical radiography performed by dental students.
    Choksi SK; Rao MS
    MSDA J; 1996; 39(1):23-6. PubMed ID: 9569872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effect of in-vivo-occurring errors in the reproducibility of radiographs on the use of the subtraction technique.
    Janssen PT; van Palenstein Helderman WH; van Aken J
    J Clin Periodontol; 1989 Jan; 16(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 2644313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Film-less digital x-ray image processing--new prospects with the RadioVisioGraphy equipment].
    Mairgünther RH
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 1994; 104(1):31-4. PubMed ID: 8108689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Intraoral computed radiography using the Fuji computed radiography imaging plate. Correlation between image quality and reading condition.
    Kashima I; Sakurai T; Matsuki T; Nakamura K; Aoki H; Ishii M; Kanagawa Y
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Aug; 78(2):239-46. PubMed ID: 7936596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.