125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7489279)
21. Optical densities of dental resin composites: a comparison of CCD, storage phosphor, and Ektaspeed plus radiographic film.
Farman TT; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Goldsmith LJ
Gen Dent; 1996; 44(6):532-7. PubMed ID: 9515395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 2: optimum exposure conditions for detection of small mass changes in 6 intraoral radiography systems.
Yoshiura K; Kawazu T; Chikui T; Tatsumi M; Tokumori K; Tanaka T; Kanda S
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Jan; 87(1):123-9. PubMed ID: 9927091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Figures of merit for detectors in digital radiography. I. Flat background and deterministic blurring.
Pineda AR; Barrett HH
Med Phys; 2004 Feb; 31(2):348-58. PubMed ID: 15000621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Some characteristics of solid-state and photo-stimulable phosphor detectors for intra-oral radiography.
Borg E
Swed Dent J Suppl; 1999; 139():i-viii, 1-67. PubMed ID: 10635104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. A simple method for measuring MTF in direct digital intraoral radiography. Technical note.
McDavid WD; Welander U; Sanderink GC; Dove SB; Tronje G
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Dec; 78(6):802-5. PubMed ID: 7898914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Modulation transfer function of a digital dental x-ray system.
Chen SK; Hollender L
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Mar; 77(3):308-13. PubMed ID: 8170666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype.
Vedantham S; Karellas A; Suryanarayanan S; Albagli D; Han S; Tkaczyk EJ; Landberg CE; Opsahl-Ong B; Granfors PR; Levis I; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE
Med Phys; 2000 Mar; 27(3):558-67. PubMed ID: 10757607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A comparison of digital radiography systems in terms of effective detective quantum efficiency.
Bertolini M; Nitrosi A; Rivetti S; Lanconelli N; Pattacini P; Ginocchi V; Iori M
Med Phys; 2012 May; 39(5):2617-27. PubMed ID: 22559632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. An experimental comparison of detector performance for computed radiography systems.
Samei E; Flynn MJ
Med Phys; 2002 Apr; 29(4):447-59. PubMed ID: 11991117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Signal-to-noise ratios of 6 intraoral digital sensors.
Attaelmanan AG; Borg E; Gröndahl HG
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 May; 91(5):611-5. PubMed ID: 11346743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of system noise.
Håkansson M; Båth M; Börjesson S; Kheddache S; Johnsson AA; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):97-101. PubMed ID: 15933088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Accuracy validation of incident photon fluence on detective quantum efficiency in mammography.
Haba T; Koyama S; Otani N
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2018 Dec; 41(4):847-852. PubMed ID: 30151709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Experimental comparison of noise and resolution for 2k and 4k storage phosphor radiography systems.
Flynn MJ; Samei E
Med Phys; 1999 Aug; 26(8):1612-23. PubMed ID: 10501062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Signal and noise transfer in spatiotemporal quantum-based imaging systems.
Akbarpour R; Friedman SN; Siewerdsen JH; Neary JD; Cunningham IA
J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis; 2007 Dec; 24(12):B151-64. PubMed ID: 18059907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Amorphous In-Ga-Zn-O thin-film transistor active pixel sensor x-ray imager for digital breast tomosynthesis.
Zhao C; Kanicki J
Med Phys; 2014 Sep; 41(9):091902. PubMed ID: 25186389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Dependency of dose response of five charge-coupled device-based digital intra-oral radiographic systems on tube voltage.
Nishikawa K; Shibuya H; Wakoh M; Kuroyanagi K
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Nov; 28(6):364-7. PubMed ID: 10578191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Comparison of entrance exposure and signal-to-noise ratio between an SBDX prototype and a wide-beam cardiac angiographic system.
Speidel MA; Wilfley BP; Star-Lack JM; Heanue JA; Betts TD; Van Lysel MS
Med Phys; 2006 Aug; 33(8):2728-43. PubMed ID: 16964848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. High-resolution imager for digital mammography: physical characterization of a prototype sensor.
Suryanarayanan S; Karellas A; Vedantham S; Onishi SK
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Sep; 50(17):3957-69. PubMed ID: 16177523
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
