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 *

170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6379007)

  • 1. Computer correction of projective distortions in dental radiographs.
    Webber RL; Ruttimann UE; Groenhuis RA
    J Dent Res; 1984 Aug; 63(8):1032-6. PubMed ID: 6379007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The effect of independent film and object rotation on projective geometric standardization of dental radiographs.
    Fisher E; van der Stelt PF; Ostuni J; Dunn SM
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Feb; 24(1):5-12. PubMed ID: 8593908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of three contrast correction methods for digital subtraction in dental radiography: an in vitro study.
    Likar B; Pernus F
    Med Phys; 1997 Feb; 24(2):299-307. PubMed ID: 9048371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Registration of dental radiographs using projective geometry.
    Ostuni J; Fisher E; van der Stelt P; Dunn S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1993 Nov; 22(4):199-203. PubMed ID: 8181647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. In vivo determination of radiographic projection errors produced by a novel filmholder and an x-ray beam manipulator.
    Zappa U; Simona C; Graf H; van Aken J
    J Periodontol; 1991 Nov; 62(11):674-83. PubMed ID: 1753320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Direct digital radiography in the dental office.
    Wenzel A; Gröndahl HG
    Int Dent J; 1995 Feb; 45(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 7607741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of logarithmic contrast enhancement on subtraction images.
    Versteeg KH; van der Stelt PF
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1995 Oct; 80(4):479-86. PubMed ID: 8521113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Digital subtraction radiography.
    Reddy MS; Jeffcoat MK
    Dent Clin North Am; 1993 Oct; 37(4):553-65. PubMed ID: 8224332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of two registration techniques for digital subtraction radiography.
    Dunn SM; van der Stelt PF; Ponce A; Fenesy K; Shah S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1993 May; 22(2):77-80. PubMed ID: 8375559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Digital subtraction radiography for detecting cortical and cancellous bone changes in the periapical region.
    Tyndall DA; Kapa SF; Bagnell CP
    J Endod; 1990 Apr; 16(4):173-8. PubMed ID: 2074408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A new method for the automated alignment of dental radiographs for digital subtraction radiography.
    Yoon DC
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 10654031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Computer-assisted subtraction radiography in periodontal diagnosis.
    Gröndahl K
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1987; 50():1-44. PubMed ID: 3321498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Influence of contrast enhancement and pseudocolor transformation on the diagnosis with digital subtraction images (DSI).
    Brägger U; Bürgin W; Marconi M; Häsler RU; Lang NP
    J Periodontal Res; 1994 Mar; 29(2):95-102. PubMed ID: 8158504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of stent versus laser- and cephalostat-aligned periapical film-positioning techniques for use in digital subtraction radiography.
    Ludlow JB; Peleaux CP
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Feb; 77(2):208-15. PubMed ID: 8139840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Detection of mineral loss in approximal enamel by subtraction radiography.
    Halse A; Espelid I; Tveit AB; White SC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Feb; 77(2):177-82. PubMed ID: 8139837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Registration techniques for digital subtraction radiography.
    Samarabandu J; Allen K; Hausmann E; Acharya R
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1994 May; 23(2):117-9. PubMed ID: 7835503
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A nonlinear model for predicting radiographic contrast.
    Webber RL; Youmans HD; Nagel RN
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1977 May; 43(5):798-811. PubMed ID: 266160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Computer-based registration for digital subtraction in dental radiology.
    Lehmann TM; Gröndahl HG; Benn DK
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Nov; 29(6):323-46. PubMed ID: 11114663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Automatic correspondence using the enhanced hexagonal centre-based inner search algorithm for point-based dental image registration.
    Economopoulos T; Matsopoulos GK; Asvestas PA; Gröndahl K; Gröndahl HG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 May; 37(4):185-204. PubMed ID: 18460572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Research methods in dentistry. 8. Methods for longitudinally detecting differences in bone density: digital subtraction radiography].
    van der Stelt PF
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 2005 Feb; 112(2):46-50. PubMed ID: 15747997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.