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.
132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6576317)
21. Radiation exposure to critical organs in panoramic dental examination. Bahreyni Toossi MT; Akbari F; Bayani Roodi S Acta Med Iran; 2012; 50(12):809-13. PubMed ID: 23456522 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Comparison of radiation levels from computed tomography and conventional dental radiographs. Ngan DC; Kharbanda OP; Geenty JP; Darendeliler MA Aust Orthod J; 2003 Nov; 19(2):67-75. PubMed ID: 14703331 [TBL] [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. Comparison of dosimetry methods for panoramic radiography: thermoluminescent dosimeter measurement versus personal computer-based Monte Carlo method calculation. Lee C; Lee SS; Kim JE; Huh KH; Yi WJ; Heo MS; Choi SC Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2016 Mar; 121(3):322-9. PubMed ID: 26795453 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Panoramic radiography: why the controversy?]. Bernhard M SSO Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnheilkd; 1979 Mar; 89(3):181-3. PubMed ID: 293031 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Absorbed doses with intraoral radiography. Function of various technical parameters. Hayakawa Y; Fujimori H; Kuroyanagi K Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1993 Oct; 76(4):519-24. PubMed ID: 8233434 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Exposure distribution, absorbed doses, and energy imparted for panoramic radiography using Orthopantomograph model OP 5. Nilsson L; Rohlin M; Thapper K Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1985 Feb; 59(2):212-9. PubMed ID: 3856810 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Assessment of radiation exposure in dental cone-beam computerized tomography with the use of metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) dosimeters and Monte Carlo simulations. Koivisto J; Kiljunen T; Tapiovaara M; Wolff J; Kortesniemi M Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2012 Sep; 114(3):393-400. PubMed ID: 22862982 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Efficacy of lead foil for reducing doses in the head and neck: a simulation study using digital intraoral systems. Nejaim Y; Silva AI; Brasil DM; Vasconcelos KF; Haiter Neto F; Boscolo FN Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(8):20150065. PubMed ID: 26084474 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [Dose measurements comparing conventional and digital panoramic radiography]. Visser H; Hermann KP; Bredemeier S; Köhler B Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir; 2000 Jul; 4(4):213-6. PubMed ID: 10994319 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. [Energy imparted and effective dose equivalent in radiographic examination using panoramic and intraoral film techniques: a survey]. Sewerin I Tandlaegebladet; 1989 Jul; 93(10):351-6. PubMed ID: 2699680 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Red bone marrow doses, integral absorbed doses, and somatically effective dose equivalent from four maxillary occlusal projections. Berge TI; Wøhni T Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1984 Feb; 57(2):212-8. PubMed ID: 6583630 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Radiation absorbed from dental implant radiography: a comparison of linear tomography, CT scan, and panoramic and intra-oral techniques. Clark DE; Danforth RA; Barnes RW; Burtch ML J Oral Implantol; 1990; 16(3):156-64. PubMed ID: 2098559 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]