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: 6581464)

  • 1. The effect of viewing conditions on the perceptibility of radiographic details.
    Welander U; McDavid WD; Higgins NM; Morris CR
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1983 Dec; 56(6):651-4. PubMed ID: 6581464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The influence of viewing conditions on radiological diagnosis of periapical inflammation.
    Patel N; Rushton VE; Macfarlane TV; Horner K
    Br Dent J; 2000 Jul; 189(1):40-2. PubMed ID: 10967823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after correction for attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response.
    Li G; Welander U; Yoshiura K; Shi XQ; McDavid WD
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):372-8. PubMed ID: 15070839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The radiographic detection of initial carious lesions on the proximal surfaces of teeth. Part II. The influence of viewing conditions.
    Arnold LV
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1987 Aug; 64(2):232-40. PubMed ID: 3476901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Information gain at reduced exposure time using a prototype video-enhancement device.
    Miles DA; Van Dis ML; Peterson MG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1989 Aug; 18(3):100-4. PubMed ID: 2637875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Video enhancement of dental radiographic films.
    Van Dis ML; Beck FM; Miles DA
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Aug; 68(2):226-31. PubMed ID: 2780023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Objective and subjective comparisons of the observation of dental xeroradiographs with reflected and transmitted light.
    Nishikawa K; Yajima U; Kuroyanagi K
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Jun; 67(6):770-4. PubMed ID: 2740098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Psychophysical properties of a new F-speed intraoral film.
    Mastoris M; Yoshiura K; Welander U; Tsiklakis K; Papadakis E; Li G
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 May; 33(3):158-63. PubMed ID: 15371315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A simplified method to obtain perceptibility curves for direct dental digital radiography.
    Stamatakis HC; Yoshiura K; Shi XQ; Welander U; McDavid WD
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Mar; 28(2):112-5. PubMed ID: 10522200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Interpretation of dental and maxillofacial radiographs: a comparative study using an X-ray viewing box and window.
    Makdissi J
    J Ir Dent Assoc; 2002; 48(4):123-4. PubMed ID: 12622015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Update on the recommended viewing protocol for FAXIL threshold contrast detail detectability test objects used in television fluoroscopy.
    Launders JH; McArdle S; Workman A; Cowen AR
    Br J Radiol; 1995 Jan; 68(805):70-7. PubMed ID: 7881886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A densitometric evaluation of two radiographic duplicating films under differing conditions of exposure and processing.
    Price C
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1980 Aug; 50(2):190-4. PubMed ID: 6930620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Conventional and predicted perceptibility curves for contrast-enhanced direct digital intraoral radiographs.
    Yoshiura K; Welander U; Shi XQ; Li G; Kawazu T; Tatsumi M; Okamura K; McDavid WD; Kanda S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Jul; 30(4):219-25. PubMed ID: 11681484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after application of various image processing algorithms.
    Alpöz E; Soğur E; Baksi Akdeniz BG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Dec; 36(8):490-4. PubMed ID: 18033946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [The information obtained from an intraoral radiograph is dependent on the conditions under which it is examined].
    Sewerin I; Andersen HE
    Tandlaegebladet; 1982 Aug; 86(13):428-32. PubMed ID: 6960514
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A study of the quality of duplicated radiographs.
    Erales FA; Manson-Hing LR
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1979 Jan; 47(1):98-104. PubMed ID: 282572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effects of Different Viewing Conditions on Radiographic Interpretation.
    Moshfeghi M; Shahbazian M; Sajadi SS; Sajadi S; Ansari H
    J Dent (Tehran); 2015 Nov; 12(11):853-8. PubMed ID: 27507997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The influence of ambient and viewbox light upon visual detection of low-contrast targets in a radiograph.
    Alter AJ; Kargas GA; Kargas SA; Cameron JR; McDermott JC
    Invest Radiol; 1982; 17(4):402-6. PubMed ID: 7129822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Increasing contrast when viewing radiographic images.
    Abildgaard A; Nötthellen JA
    Radiology; 1992 Nov; 185(2):475-8. PubMed ID: 1410357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Ambient lighting: effect of illumination on soft-copy viewing of radiographs of the wrist.
    Brennan PC; McEntee M; Evanoff M; Phillips P; O'Connor WT; Manning DJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):W177-80. PubMed ID: 17242225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.