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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31857863)

  • 1. Comparison of the Hounsfield unit in CT scan with the gray level in cone-beam CT.
    Razi T; Emamverdizadeh P; Nilavar N; Razi S
    J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects; 2019; 13(3):177-182. PubMed ID: 31857863
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Can gray values derived from CT and cone beam CT estimate new bone formation? An in vivo study.
    Bastami F; Shahab S; Parsa A; Abbas FM; Noori Kooshki MH; Namdari M; Lisar HA; Rafiei T; Fahimipour F; Salehi M; Jafari M
    Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2018 Mar; 22(1):13-20. PubMed ID: 29086089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Relationship between Hounsfield Unit in CT Scan and Gray Scale in CBCT.
    Razi T; Niknami M; Alavi Ghazani F
    J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects; 2014; 8(2):107-10. PubMed ID: 25093055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of CT-Number and Gray Scale Value of Different Dental Materials and Hard Tissues in CT and CBCT.
    Emadi N; Safi Y; Akbarzadeh Bagheban A; Asgary S
    Iran Endod J; 2014; 9(4):283-6. PubMed ID: 25386210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of gray values of cone-beam computed tomography with hounsfield units of multislice computed tomography: An
    Patrick S; Birur NP; Gurushanth K; Raghavan AS; Gurudath S
    Indian J Dent Res; 2017; 28(1):66-70. PubMed ID: 28393820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. How accurate is CBCT in measuring bone density? A comparative CBCT-CT in vitro study.
    Cassetta M; Stefanelli LV; Pacifici A; Pacifici L; Barbato E
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2014 Aug; 16(4):471-8. PubMed ID: 23294461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accuracy of densitometry of two cone beam computed tomography equipment in comparison with computed tomography.
    Haghanifar S; Yousefi S; Moudi E; Abesi F; Bijani A; Moghadamnia AA; Nabahati M
    Electron Physician; 2017 May; 9(5):4384-4390. PubMed ID: 28713511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Conventional multi-slice computed tomography (CT) and cone-beam CT (CBCT) for computer-assisted implant placement. Part I: relationship of radiographic gray density and implant stability.
    Arisan V; Karabuda ZC; Avsever H; Özdemir T
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2013 Dec; 15(6):893-906. PubMed ID: 22251553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT.
    Parsa A; Ibrahim N; Hassan B; van der Stelt P; Wismeijer D
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2015; 26(1):e1-7. PubMed ID: 24325572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reliability of voxel gray values in cone beam computed tomography for preoperative implant planning assessment.
    Parsa A; Ibrahim N; Hassan B; Motroni A; van der Stelt P; Wismeijer D
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(6):1438-42. PubMed ID: 23189294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Bone quality evaluation: comparison of cone beam computed tomography and subjective surgical assessment.
    Valiyaparambil JV; Yamany I; Ortiz D; Shafer DM; Pendrys D; Freilich M; Mallya SM
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(5):1271-7. PubMed ID: 23057044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Beam hardening artifacts by dental implants: Comparison of cone-beam and 64-slice computed tomography scanners.
    Esmaeili F; Johari M; Haddadi P
    Dent Res J (Isfahan); 2013 May; 10(3):376-81. PubMed ID: 24019808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Accuracy of dose calculations on kV cone beam CT images of lung cancer patients.
    de Smet M; Schuring D; Nijsten S; Verhaegen F
    Med Phys; 2016 Nov; 43(11):5934. PubMed ID: 27806611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Standardization of a cone beam computed tomography machine in evaluating bone density: a novel approach.
    Chennoju SK; Pachigolla R; Neelima V; Mrudula B; Swathi M
    Minerva Dent Oral Sci; 2021 Aug; 70(4):142-146. PubMed ID: 32744443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Morphometric analysis - Cone beam computed tomography to predict bone quality and quantity.
    Hohlweg-Majert B; Metzger MC; Kummer T; Schulze D
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2011 Jul; 39(5):330-4. PubMed ID: 21030266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Bone density: comparative evaluation of Hounsfield units in multislice and cone-beam computed tomography.
    Silva IM; Freitas DQ; Ambrosano GM; Bóscolo FN; Almeida SM
    Braz Oral Res; 2012; 26(6):550-6. PubMed ID: 23184166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Dose calculation on kV cone beam CT images: an investigation of the Hu-density conversion stability and dose accuracy using the site-specific calibration.
    Rong Y; Smilowitz J; Tewatia D; Tomé WA; Paliwal B
    Med Dosim; 2010; 35(3):195-207. PubMed ID: 19931031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of Tissue Density in Hounsfield Units in Computed Tomography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography.
    Varshowsaz M; Goorang S; Ehsani S; Azizi Z; Rahimian S
    J Dent (Tehran); 2016 Mar; 13(2):108-115. PubMed ID: 27928239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of on-board imager cone beam CT hounsfield units for treatment planning using rigid image registration.
    Rafic M; Ravindran P
    J Cancer Res Ther; 2015; 11(4):690-6. PubMed ID: 26881503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Prospects and challenges of rendering tissue density in Hounsfield units for cone beam computed tomography.
    Molteni R
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2013 Jul; 116(1):105-19. PubMed ID: 23768878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.