162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33432538)
1. Effect of voxel size on detection of fenestration, dehiscence and furcation defects using cone-beam computed tomography.
Eftekhar M; Kaviani H; Rouzmeh N; Torabinia A; Akbarzadeh Baghban A
Oral Radiol; 2021 Oct; 37(4):677-686. PubMed ID: 33432538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of CBCT with different voxel sizes and intraoral scanner for detection of periodontal defects: an in vitro study.
Icen M; Orhan K; Şeker Ç; Geduk G; Cakmak Özlü F; Cengiz Mİ
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2020 Jul; 49(5):20190197. PubMed ID: 32134338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of the different voxel sizes in the estimation of peri-implant fenestration defects using cone beam computed tomography: an ex vivo study.
Kurt MH; Bağış N; Evli C; Atakan C; Orhan K
Int J Implant Dent; 2020 Oct; 6(1):58. PubMed ID: 33006000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of periodontal defects: an in vitro study.
Bagis N; Kolsuz ME; Kursun S; Orhan K
BMC Oral Health; 2015 May; 15():64. PubMed ID: 26016804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Detection of simulated periodontal defects using cone-beam CT and digital intraoral radiography.
Bayat S; Talaeipour AR; Sarlati F
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016 Jul; 45(6):20160030. PubMed ID: 27115722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. An ex vivo comparison of diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography and periapical radiography in the detection of furcal perforations.
Kamburoğlu K; Yeta EN; Yılmaz F
J Endod; 2015 May; 41(5):696-702. PubMed ID: 25684431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An In Vivo and Cone Beam Computed Tomography Investigation of the Accuracy in Measuring Alveolar Bone Height and Detecting Dehiscence and Fenestration Defects.
Peterson AG; Wang M; Gonzalez S; Covell DA; Katancik J; Sehgal HS
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2018; 33(6):1296-1304. PubMed ID: 30427960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of the influence of FOV sizes and different voxel resolutions for the assessment of periodontal defects.
Kolsuz ME; Bagis N; Orhan K; Avsever H; Demiralp KÖ
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(7):20150070. PubMed ID: 25900235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of voxel size on accuracy of cone beam computed tomography-aided assessment of periodontal furcation involvement.
Kamburoğlu K; Ereş G; Akgün C; Yeta EN; Gülen O; Karacaoĝlu F
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2015 Nov; 120(5):644-50. PubMed ID: 26337220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Detection of periimplant fenestration and dehiscence with the use of two scan modes and the smallest voxel sizes of a cone-beam computed tomography device.
de-Azevedo-Vaz SL; Vasconcelos Kde F; Neves FS; Melo SL; Campos PS; Haiter-Neto F
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2013 Jan; 115(1):121-7. PubMed ID: 23217543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Detection of simulated incipient furcation involvement by CBCT: an in vitro study using pig mandibles.
Umetsubo OS; Gaia BF; Costa FF; Cavalcanti MG
Braz Oral Res; 2012; 26(4):341-7. PubMed ID: 22790499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of non-contrast-enhanced dental magnetic resonance imaging and cone-beam computed tomography in assessing the horizontal and vertical components of furcation defects in maxillary molars: An in vivo feasibility study.
Juerchott A; Sohani M; Schwindling FS; Jende JME; Kurz FT; Rammelsberg P; Heiland S; Bendszus M; Hilgenfeld T
J Clin Periodontol; 2020 Dec; 47(12):1485-1495. PubMed ID: 32990988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of linear and volumetric measurements obtained from periodontal defects by using cone beam-CT and micro-CT: an in vitro study.
Tayman MA; Kamburoğlu K; Küçük Ö; Ateş FSÖ; Günhan M
Clin Oral Investig; 2019 May; 23(5):2235-2244. PubMed ID: 30284102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Appraisal of the relationship between tooth inclination, dehiscence, fenestration, and sagittal skeletal pattern with cone beam computed tomography.
Coşkun İ; Kaya B
Angle Orthod; 2019 Jul; 89(4):544-551. PubMed ID: 30741575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Imaging furcation defects with low-dose cone beam computed tomography.
Ruetters M; Gehrig H; Kim TS; Bartha V; Bruckner T; Schwindling FS; Felten A; Lux C; Sen S
Sci Rep; 2022 Apr; 12(1):6824. PubMed ID: 35474083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dehiscence and fenestration in skeletal Class I, II, and III malocclusions assessed with cone-beam computed tomography.
Yagci A; Veli I; Uysal T; Ucar FI; Ozer T; Enhos S
Angle Orthod; 2012 Jan; 82(1):67-74. PubMed ID: 21696298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Accuracy analysis of alveolar dehiscence and fenestration of maxillary anterior teeth of Angle class III by cone-beam CT].
Xu X; Xu L; Jiang JH; Wu JQ; Li XT; Jing WD
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2018 Feb; 50(1):104-109. PubMed ID: 29483731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Assessing the Impact of the Metal Artifact Reduction Tool on Detecting Furcation Lesions in Maxillary Molars with Different Intracanal Posts: An Ex Vivo Cone-beam Computed Tomography Study.
Bastos MF; Visconti MA; Pinto RR; Junqueira RB; Verner FS
J Endod; 2024 Jun; 50(6):835-843. PubMed ID: 38395388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography in assessing maxillary molar furcation involvement.
Qiao J; Wang S; Duan J; Zhang Y; Qiu Y; Sun C; Liu D
J Clin Periodontol; 2014 Mar; 41(3):269-74. PubMed ID: 24372315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of cone-beam computed tomography, clinical and surgical analysis for detection of maxillary molar furcation.
Oliveira PR; Sousa TO; Valladares-Neto J; Souza JAC; Silva MA; Roriz VM
Acta Odontol Latinoam; 2021 Dec; 34(3):240-248. PubMed ID: 35088811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
