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.
141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36865948)
21. Estimation of organ and effective doses of CBCT scans of radiotherapy using size-specific field of view (FOV): a Monte Carlo study. Abuhaimed A; Mujammami H; AlEnazi K; Abanomy A; Alashban Y; Martin CJ Phys Eng Sci Med; 2024 Mar; ():. PubMed ID: 38536632 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Quantitative evaluation of metal artifacts using different CBCT devices, high-density materials and field of views. Codari M; de Faria Vasconcelos K; Ferreira Pinheiro Nicolielo L; Haiter Neto F; Jacobs R Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Dec; 28(12):1509-1514. PubMed ID: 28432698 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Optimizing the target detectability of cone beam CT performed in image-guided radiation therapy for patients of different body sizes. Yang CC; Yu PC; Ruan JM; Chen YC J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 May; 19(3):310-317. PubMed ID: 29516610 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Dosimetry of Three Cone Beam Computerized Tomography Scanners at Different Fields of View in Terms of Various Head and Neck Organs. Nikneshan S; Aghamiri MR; Moudi E; Bahemmat N; Hadian H Iran J Radiol; 2016 Jul; 13(3):e34220. PubMed ID: 27853498 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Can modifying shielding, field of view, and exposure settings make the effective dose of a cone-beam computed tomography comparable to traditional radiographs used for orthodontic diagnosis? Ting S; Attaia D; Johnson KB; Kossa SS; Friedland B; Allareddy V; Masoud MI Angle Orthod; 2020 Sep; 90(5):655-664. PubMed ID: 33378479 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Influence of acquisition parameters on the magnitude of cone beam computed tomography artifacts. Freitas DQ; Fontenele RC; Nascimento EHL; Vasconcelos TV; Noujeim M Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2018 Dec; 47(8):20180151. PubMed ID: 29916722 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Reduction of scatter-induced image noise in cone beam computed tomography: effect of field of view size and position. Pauwels R; Jacobs R; Bogaerts R; Bosmans H; Panmekiate S Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2016 Feb; 121(2):188-95. PubMed ID: 26792756 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. SU-E-I-14: Evaluation of Image Quality Parameters of Small and Full Field of View Cone Beam Computed Tomography Dental Imaging Systems. Hoffmann E; Silva AMD; Azevedo D; Borges J Med Phys; 2012 Jun; 39(6Part4):3627-3628. PubMed ID: 28519507 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A quantitative analysis of metal artifact reduction algorithm performance in volume correction with 3 CBCT devices. de Faria Vasconcelos K; Queiroz PM; Codari M; Pinheiro Nicolielo LF; Freitas DQ; Jacobs R; Haiter-Neto F Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2020 Sep; 130(3):328-335. PubMed ID: 32439517 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Impact of scanning parameters and breathing patterns on image quality and accuracy of tumor motion reconstruction in 4D CBCT: a phantom study. Lee S; Yan G; Lu B; Kahler D; Li JG; Sanjiv SS J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2015 Nov; 16(6):195-212. PubMed ID: 26699574 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Characterization of Scattered X-Ray Photons in Dental Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. Yang CC PLoS One; 2016; 11(3):e0149904. PubMed ID: 26950435 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Convex triangular vs. cylindrical field of view: how does the shape of the FOV affect radiation dose? Cascante-Sequeira D; Oliveira-Santos C; Brasil DM; Santaella GM; Swanson C; Blackburn M; Scarfe WC; Haiter-Neto F Clin Oral Investig; 2023 Dec; 27(12):7881-7888. PubMed ID: 37993703 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Experiences with image quality and radiation dose of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in pediatric extremity trauma. Tschauner S; Marterer R; Nagy E; Singer G; Riccabona M; Sorantin E Skeletal Radiol; 2020 Dec; 49(12):1939-1949. PubMed ID: 32535775 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Relationship between CNR and visibility of anatomical structures of cone-beam computed tomography images under different exposure parameters. Wang MF; Xie X; Li G; Zhang Z Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2020 Jul; 49(5):20190336. PubMed ID: 32045279 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Quantitative performance characterization of image quality and radiation dose for a CS 9300 dental cone beam computed tomography machine. Abouei E; Lee S; Ford NL J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2015 Oct; 2(4):044002. PubMed ID: 26587550 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Evaluation of the Metal Artifact Caused by Dental Implants in Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images. Vahdani N; Moudi E; Ghobadi F; Mohammadi E; Bijani A; Haghanifar S Maedica (Bucur); 2020 Jun; 15(2):224-229. PubMed ID: 32952687 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Assessment of Volumetric Distortion Artifact in Filled Root Canals Using Different Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Devices. Celikten B; Jacobs R; deFaria Vasconcelos K; Huang Y; Nicolielo LFP; Orhan K J Endod; 2017 Sep; 43(9):1517-1521. PubMed ID: 28673491 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Use of gray values in CBCT and MSCT images for determination of density: influence of variation of FOV size. Rodrigues AF; Campos MJ; Chaoubah A; Fraga MR; Farinazzo Vitral RW Implant Dent; 2015 Apr; 24(2):155-9. PubMed ID: 25706259 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]