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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 5278369)

  • 21. THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS OF X-RAY FILMS AND SCREENS.
    MORGAN RH; BATES LM; GOPALARAO UV; MARINARO A
    Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med; 1964 Aug; 92():426-40. PubMed ID: 14207592
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Comparative evaluation of the sensitometric properties of screen-film systems and conventional dental receptors for intraoral radiography.
    Kircos LT; Staninec M; Chou L
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Dec; 68(6):787-92. PubMed ID: 2594331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A simple shield for radiographic film.
    Hirschfeld L
    J Periodontol; 1978 Jan; 49(1):43. PubMed ID: 271713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. THE CONVERSION FACTOR FOR IMAGE INTENSIFIERS.
    HOLM T; MOSELEY RD
    Radiology; 1964 May; 82():898-904. PubMed ID: 14153683
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A method of determining the sensitometric properties of non-screen x-ray films.
    Price C
    Br J Radiol; 1973 Sep; 46(549):719-23. PubMed ID: 4733243
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A sensitometric evaluation of a dental radiographic developer additive.
    Price C
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1982 Apr; 53(4):429-32. PubMed ID: 6952156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A survey of radiographic techniques and equipment used by a sample of general dental practitioners.
    Bohay RN; Kogon SL; Stephens RG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Dec; 78(6):806-10. PubMed ID: 7898915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. An evaluation of lead foil in dental X-ray film packets. 1. Factors affecting the intensity of back-scattered radiation and the effect of this radiation on radiographic contrast when density is allowed to increase.
    Price C
    Br Dent J; 1972 Oct; 133(7):300-4. PubMed ID: 4509449
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [Comparative densitometric study with "Cea," "Dupont," "Gevaert," and "Kodak" radiographic films].
    CEBALLOS LABAT J
    Rev Med Hosp Gen (Mex); 1962; 25():79-95. PubMed ID: 13877560
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 1971 survey of dental practice. XI. Procedures followed in the use of radiographic equipment. Bureau of Economic Research and Statistics.
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1972 Oct; 85(4):921-5. PubMed ID: 4506947
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A new device to reduce patient irradiation and improve dental film quality.
    MEDWEDEFF FM; KNOX WH; LATIMER P
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1962 Sep; 15():1079-88. PubMed ID: 14472037
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. An evaluation of lead foil in dental X-ray film packets. 2. The effect of back-scattered radiation on radiographic contrast when the density is maintained at an optimum level.
    Price C
    Br Dent J; 1972 Oct; 133(8):343-6. PubMed ID: 4510027
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. PROGRESS IN DENTAL RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH.
    MILLER JW
    Radiol Health Data Rep; 1964 Oct; 5():499-504. PubMed ID: 14204206
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Status X, equipment for panoramic photographs in intraoral dental radiographic diagnosis].
    Meinel F
    Dtsch Zahnarztl Z; 1972 Dec; 27(12):943-9. PubMed ID: 4510035
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effects of developer exhaustion on the sensitometric properties of four dental films.
    Syriopoulos K; Velders XL; Sanderink GC; van Ginkel FC; van der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Mar; 28(2):80-8. PubMed ID: 10522196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Sensitometric evaluation of a new E-speed dental radiographic film.
    Price C
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Feb; 24(1):30-6. PubMed ID: 8593905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A discussion of federal specifications GG-X-620 and L-F-310 for dental x-ray apparatus and dental x-ray film.
    PAFFENBARGER GC; FORZIATI AF; KUMPULA MP
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1959 Sep; 59():472-7. PubMed ID: 14429739
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Sensitometric response of the Sens-A-Ray, a charge-coupled imaging device, to changes in beam energy.
    Goshima T; Goshima Y; Scarfe WC; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Jan; 25(1):17-8. PubMed ID: 9084280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Is there a method whereby an intraoral film can be positively identified on the film itself without detracting from its diagnostic value?
    LYNN BD
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1963 Jun; 16():691-3. PubMed ID: 13931934
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A teaching aid in radiological interpretation.
    Harty FJ; Morrant GA
    Br Dent J; 1975 Sep; 139(5):183-4. PubMed ID: 51644
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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