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.
22. Impact of conventional tomography on prediction of the appropriate implant size. Schropp L; Wenzel A; Kostopoulos L Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Oct; 92(4):458-63. PubMed ID: 11598584 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Digital volume tomography in the diagnosis of peri-implant defects: an in vitro study on native pig mandibles. Mengel R; Kruse B; Flores-de-Jacoby L J Periodontol; 2006 Jul; 77(7):1234-41. PubMed ID: 16805688 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The role of objective plane angulation on the mandibular image using cross-sectional tomography. Naitoh M; Katsumata A; Kubota Y; Okumura S; Hayashi H; Ariji E J Oral Implantol; 2006; 32(3):117-21. PubMed ID: 16836175 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Validation of spiral computed tomography for dental implants. Cavalcanti MG; Yang J; Ruprecht A; Vannier MW Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 Nov; 27(6):329-33. PubMed ID: 10895630 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. A diagnostic stent for endosseous implants to improve conventional tomographic radiographs. Lee SY; Morgano SM J Prosthet Dent; 1994 May; 71(5):482-5. PubMed ID: 8006844 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Cross-sectional tomograms obtained with four panoramic radiographic units in the assessment of implant site measurements. Peltola JS; Mattila M Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Sep; 33(5):295-300. PubMed ID: 15585805 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Reliability of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical guides generated from computed tomography: clinical data from 94 implants. Ersoy AE; Turkyilmaz I; Ozan O; McGlumphy EA J Periodontol; 2008 Aug; 79(8):1339-45. PubMed ID: 18672982 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Radiography of the mandible prior to endosseous implant treatment. Localization of the mandibular canal and assessment of trabecular bone. Lindh C Swed Dent J Suppl; 1996; 112():1-45. PubMed ID: 8782328 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Clinical application of a new cone-beam computerized tomography system to assess multiple two-dimensional images for the preoperative treatment planning of maxillary implants: case reports. Sato S; Arai Y; Shinoda K; Ito K Quintessence Int; 2004; 35(7):525-8. PubMed ID: 15259967 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparison of ridge mapping and cone beam computed tomography for planning dental implant therapy. Luk LC; Pow EH; Li TK; Chow TW Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(1):70-4. PubMed ID: 21365040 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Comparison between planned prosthetic trajectory and residual bone trajectory using surgical guides and tomography--a pilot study. Almog DM; Onufrak JM; Hebel K; Meitner SW J Oral Implantol; 1995; 21(4):275-80. PubMed ID: 8699519 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Assessment of three-dimensional X-ray images: reconstruction from conventional tomograms, compact computerized tomography images, and multislice helical computerized tomography images. Naitoh M; Katsumata A; Kubota Y; Ariji E J Oral Implantol; 2005; 31(5):234-41. PubMed ID: 16265853 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Linear tomography's clinical accuracy and validity for presurgical dental implant analysis. Butterfield KJ; Dagenais M; Clokie C Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1997 Aug; 84(2):203-9. PubMed ID: 9269023 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]