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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31075041)

  • 1. A comparative study on image quality of two digital intraoral sensors.
    Aziman C; Hellén-Halme K; Shi XQ
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2019 Oct; 48(7):20190063. PubMed ID: 31075041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of psychophysical properties of two intraoral digital sensors on low-contrast perceptibility.
    Shi XQ; Benchimol D; Näsström K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(10):20130249. PubMed ID: 24170798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of two intraoral CCD sensor systems in terms of image quality and interobserver agreement.
    Schulze D; Rother UJ; Fuhrmann AW; Tietke M
    Int J Comput Dent; 2003 Apr; 6(2):141-50. PubMed ID: 14552151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of complementary metal oxide semiconductor and charge-coupled device intraoral X-ray detectors using subjective image quality.
    Kitagawa H; Scheetz JP; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):408-11. PubMed ID: 15070845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Image quality evaluation of eight complementary metal-oxide semiconductor intraoral digital X-ray sensors.
    Teich S; Al-Rawi W; Heima M; Faddoul FF; Goldzweig G; Gutmacher Z; Aizenbud D
    Int Dent J; 2016 Oct; 66(5):264-71. PubMed ID: 27103603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Quality aspects of digital radiography in general dental practice.
    Hellén-Halme K
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 2007; (184):9-60. PubMed ID: 17645148
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The subjective image quality of conventional and digital panoramic radiography among 6 to 10 year old children.
    Makris N; Tsiklakis K; Alexiou KE; Vierrou AM; Stefaniotis T
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2006; 31(2):109-12. PubMed ID: 17315805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of physical properties of different digital intraoral sensors.
    Al-Rawi W; Teich S
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2013 Sep; 34(8):e76-83. PubMed ID: 24568289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Observer agreement in the detection of proximal caries with direct digital intraoral radiography.
    Naitoh M; Yuasa H; Toyama M; Shiojima M; Nakamura M; Ushida M; Iida H; Hayashi M; Ariji E
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Jan; 85(1):107-12. PubMed ID: 9474624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Intraoral versus extraoral bitewing radiography in detection of enamel proximal caries: an ex vivo study.
    Abu El-Ela WH; Farid MM; Mostafa MS
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(4):20150326. PubMed ID: 26892946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Dental digital radiography: a survey of quality aspects.
    Hellén-Halme K; Rohlin M; Petersson A
    Swed Dent J; 2005; 29(2):81-7. PubMed ID: 16035351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of the reproducibility of storage phosphor and film bitewings for assessment of alveolar bone loss.
    Henriksson CH; Stermer EM; Aass AM; Sandvik L; Møystad A
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2008; 66(6):380-4. PubMed ID: 18932094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Reliability of marginal bone level measurements on digital panoramic and digital intraoral radiographs.
    Hellén-Halme K; Lith A; Shi XQ
    Oral Radiol; 2020 Apr; 36(2):135-140. PubMed ID: 31004276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An in vitro comparison of subjective image quality of panoramic views acquired via 2D or 3D imaging.
    Pittayapat P; Galiti D; Huang Y; Dreesen K; Schreurs M; Souza PC; Rubira-Bullen IR; Westphalen FH; Pauwels R; Kalema G; Willems G; Jacobs R
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Jan; 17(1):293-300. PubMed ID: 22382448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effects of scanning parameters reduction in dental radiographs on image quality and diagnostic performance: A randomised controlled trial.
    Ghazali L; Mohd Yusof MYP; Norman NH
    J Orthod; 2021 Mar; 48(1):5-12. PubMed ID: 33200660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of image quality assessments between interventional radiographers and interventional radiologists using digital subtraction angiography.
    Nocum DJ; Robinson J; Halaki M; Båth M; Mekiš N; Liang E; Thompson N; Moscova M; Reed WM
    J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2023 Mar; 10(2):025501. PubMed ID: 36910881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reliability of CCD and CMOS (APS) digital sensors compared with D and E-plus-speed films in the detection of dental pathology: an in vitro study.
    Tsau JN; Mupparapu M
    Penn Dent J (Phila); 2001; 101():10-1. PubMed ID: 15484636
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Application of panoramic radiography with a multilayer imaging program for detecting proximal caries: a preliminary clinical study.
    Jeon KJ; Han SS; Lee C; Choi YJ; Jung HI; Kim YH
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2020 Dec; 49(8):20190467. PubMed ID: 32348170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Comparative study on radio-opacity of dental composite resin materials'determination using film imaging and digital imaging].
    Li Y; Lin H; Zhang TJ
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2021 Oct; 53(5):995-1001. PubMed ID: 34650308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.