149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33409137)
1. Detection of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region with spiral computed tomography and cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study.
Abolvardi M; Akhlaghian M; Hamidi Shishvan H; Dastan F
Imaging Sci Dent; 2020 Dec; 50(4):291-298. PubMed ID: 33409137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Detection of foreign bodies by spiral computed tomography and cone beam computed tomography in maxillofacial regions.
Kaviani F; Javad Rashid R; Shahmoradi Z; Gholamian M
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects; 2014; 8(3):166-71. PubMed ID: 25346836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of Visibility of Foreign Bodies in the Maxillofacial Region: Comparison of Computed Tomography, Cone Beam Computed Tomography, Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Valizadeh S; Pouraliakbar H; Kiani L; Safi Y; Alibakhshi L
Iran J Radiol; 2016 Oct; 13(4):e37265. PubMed ID: 27895878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Visibility of Different Intraorbital Foreign Bodies Using Plain Radiography, Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: An In Vitro Study.
Javadrashid R; Golamian M; Shahrzad M; Hajalioghli P; Shahmorady Z; Fouladi DF; Sadrarhami S; Akhoundzadeh L
Can Assoc Radiol J; 2017 May; 68(2):194-201. PubMed ID: 26899378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of accuracy between panoramic radiography, cone-beam computed tomography, and ultrasonography in detection of foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region: an
Abdinian M; Aminian M; Seyyedkhamesi S
J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2018 Feb; 44(1):18-24. PubMed ID: 29535965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Diagnostic yield of cone beam computed tomography for small foreign body detection in the hand in comparison with radiography, MSCT and MRI: an ex vivo study.
Jandl NM; Rolvien T; Rupp T; Schumacher U; Püschel K; Maas KJ; Amling M; Henes FO; Spink C
Injury; 2021 Oct; 52(10):2841-2847. PubMed ID: 33487409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparative Sensitivity Assessment of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Digital Radiography for detecting Foreign Bodies.
Lari SS; Shokri A; Hosseinipanah SM; Rostami S; Sabounchi SS
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2016 Mar; 17(3):224-9. PubMed ID: 27207202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study.
Javadrashid R; Fouladi DF; Golamian M; Hajalioghli P; Daghighi MH; Shahmorady Z; Niknejad MT
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(4):20140229. PubMed ID: 25426703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison between Computed Tomography and Ultrasonography in Detecting Foreign Bodies Regarding Their Composition and Depth: An In Vitro Study.
Haghnegahdar A; Shakibafard A; Khosravifard N
J Dent (Shiraz); 2016 Sep; 17(3):177-84. PubMed ID: 27602392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of Ultrasonography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Cone Beam Computed Tomography for Detection of Foreign Bodies in Maxillofacial Region.
Shokri A; Jamalpour M; Jafariyeh B; Poorolajal J; Sabet NK
J Clin Diagn Res; 2017 Apr; 11(4):TC15-TC19. PubMed ID: 28571230
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Visibility of foreign bodies in soft tissue in plain radiographs, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound. An in vitro study.
Oikarinen KS; Nieminen TM; Mäkäräinen H; Pyhtinen J
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1993 Apr; 22(2):119-24. PubMed ID: 8320449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography.
Aras MH; Miloglu O; Barutcugil C; Kantarci M; Ozcan E; Harorli A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 Feb; 39(2):72-8. PubMed ID: 20100917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Identification of various orthodontic materials as foreign bodies via panoramic radiography, cone beam computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasonography: an in vitro study.
Isman O; Isman E
Oral Radiol; 2021 Jul; 37(3):524-530. PubMed ID: 34037939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of Cone Beam Computed Tomography and ultrasonography with two types of probes in the detection of opaque and non-opaque foreign bodies.
Demiralp KO; Orhan K; Kurşun-Çakmak EŞ; Gorurgoz C; Bayrak S
Med Ultrason; 2018 Dec; 20(4):467-474. PubMed ID: 30534654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of intraocular foreign bodies by spiral computed tomography and multiplanar reconstruction.
Lakits A; Steiner E; Scholda C; Kontrus M
Ophthalmology; 1998 Feb; 105(2):307-12. PubMed ID: 9479292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Intraoral foreign bodies detected 40 years after a car accident using cone beam computed tomography.
Schnider N; Reichart PA; Bornstein MM
Quintessence Int; 2012 Oct; 43(9):741-5. PubMed ID: 23041987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Detection of Intraorbital Foreign Bodies Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Computed Tomography.
Ayalon A; Fanadka F; Levov D; Saabni R; Moisseiev E
Curr Eye Res; 2021 Dec; 46(12):1917-1922. PubMed ID: 34325598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Radiology of foreign bodies: how do we image them?
Ingraham CR; Mannelli L; Robinson JD; Linnau KF
Emerg Radiol; 2015 Aug; 22(4):425-30. PubMed ID: 25648360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Accuracy of radiography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing foreign bodies in the foot.
Pattamapaspong N; Srisuwan T; Sivasomboon C; Nasuto M; Suwannahoy P; Settakorn J; Kraisarin J; Guglielmi G
Radiol Med; 2013 Mar; 118(2):303-10. PubMed ID: 22744349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
