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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3670171)

  • 21. Prospective comparison of axial computed tomography and standard and panoramic radiographs in the diagnosis of mandibular fractures.
    Markowitz BL; Sinow JD; Kawamoto HK; Shewmake K; Khoumehr F
    Ann Plast Surg; 1999 Feb; 42(2):163-9. PubMed ID: 10029481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A comparative study of radiation doses received during examinations with the pantomograph, orthopantomograph, Panorex, Status-X and conventional roentgen apparatus.
    Altonen M; Heikkilä M; Mattila K
    Proc Finn Dent Soc; 1974 Apr; 70(2):67-74. PubMed ID: 4831509
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Absorbed doses for patients undergoing panoramic radiography, cephalometric radiography and CBCT.
    Wrzesień M; Olszewski J
    Int J Occup Med Environ Health; 2017 Jul; 30(5):705-713. PubMed ID: 28584324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A comparative study of 2 imaging techniques for the diagnosis of condylar fractures in children.
    Chacon GE; Dawson KH; Myall RW; Beirne OR
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2003 Jun; 61(6):668-72; discussion 673. PubMed ID: 12796873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The value of coronal computer tomograms in fractures of the mandibular condylar process.
    Schimming R; Eckelt U; Kittner T
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 May; 87(5):632-9. PubMed ID: 10348526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Some measurements of doses to patients in dental radiography].
    Wøohni T
    Nor Tannlaegeforen Tid; 1976 Nov; 86(10):451-7. PubMed ID: 1068438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Orthopantomography or panagraphy, which is more advantageous for the X-ray diagnosis of the mandibular fracture?].
    Adachi T; Yamamoto A; Goshima Y; Tanaka M; Kominato H
    Tsurumi Shigaku; 1976 Jun; 2(1):19-23. PubMed ID: 1072927
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. [Use of the orthopantomogram in the diagnosis, planning and evaluation of therapy in maxillofacial surgery].
    Neuner O; Schegg HK
    Dtsch Zahnarztl Z; 1969 Jan; 24(1):64-70. PubMed ID: 5255400
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Surface and internal absorbed doses in mandibular and maxillary occlusal radiography.
    Roth SF; Bohay RN; Barnett RB
    J Can Dent Assoc; 1995 Nov; 61(11):955-9. PubMed ID: 8521323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Personal thermoluminescent dosimetry for determining the radiation dosage in children and adolescents in status X panoramic radiography in dental roentgen diagnosis].
    Wiltschke F; Taschner P; Edelmann BU; Schmidt W; Schönberger A
    Radiol Diagn (Berl); 1981; 22(2):224-30. PubMed ID: 7255694
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Comparative studies on the radiation dosage in various panoramic radiographic procedures].
    Sonnabend E
    Dtsch Zahnarztl Z; 1974 Sep; 29(9):730-3. PubMed ID: 4529421
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparison of patient dose from imaging protocols for dental implant planning using conventional radiography and computed tomography.
    Lecomber AR; Yoneyama Y; Lovelock DJ; Hosoi T; Adams AM
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Sep; 30(5):255-9. PubMed ID: 11571544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Cone beam computed tomography for dental and maxillofacial imaging: technique improvement and low-dose protocols.
    Feragalli B; Rampado O; Abate C; Macrì M; Festa F; Stromei F; Caputi S; Guglielmi G
    Radiol Med; 2017 Aug; 122(8):581-588. PubMed ID: 28365888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: the impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation.
    Ludlow JB; Davies-Ludlow LE; White SC
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2008 Sep; 139(9):1237-43. PubMed ID: 18762634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The radiographic assessment of implant patients: decision-making criteria.
    Dula K; Mini R; van der Stelt PF; Buser D
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2001; 16(1):80-9. PubMed ID: 11280366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Radiologic pitfalls of mandibular fractures].
    Nottet JB; Divaris M; Goudot P; Nivet P; Guilbert F; Vaillant JM
    Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac; 1993; 94(2):100-3. PubMed ID: 8506465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Hygiene implications associated with x-ray exposures to dental patients.
    McKlveen JW
    Am Ind Hyg Assoc J; 1980 Dec; 41(12):864-8. PubMed ID: 7468455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Dose reduction by field size trimming in rotational panoramic radiography.
    Svanaes DB; Larheim TA; Backe S
    Scand J Dent Res; 1985 Feb; 93(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 3856929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Medical uses of the orthopantomogram.
    Panella JS; Calenoff L
    JAMA; 1979 Sep; 242(12):1295-6. PubMed ID: 480547
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Panoramic radiography in dental diagnostics.
    Molander B
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1996; 119():1-26. PubMed ID: 8971997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.