110 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]
