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 *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7643038)

  • 21. Working length determination in palatal roots of maxillary molars.
    Kim-Park MA; Baughan LW; Hartwell GR
    J Endod; 2003 Jan; 29(1):58-61. PubMed ID: 12540223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Comparison of observer performance in determining the position of endodontic files with physical measures in the evaluation of dental X-ray imaging systems.
    Vandre RH; Pajak JC; Abdel-Nabi H; Farman TT; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jul; 29(4):216-22. PubMed ID: 10918454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Measurement of the distance between the minor foramen and the anatomic apex by digital and conventional radiography.
    Melius B; Jiang J; Zhu Q
    J Endod; 2002 Feb; 28(2):125-6. PubMed ID: 11833685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Radiovisiography for imaging root canals: an in vitro comparison with conventional radiography.
    Shearer AC; Horner K; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 1990 Oct; 21(10):789-94. PubMed ID: 2082410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Endodontic working length assessment. Comparison of storage phosphor digital imaging and radiographic film.
    Cederberg RA; Tidwell E; Frederiksen NL; Benson BW
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Mar; 85(3):325-8. PubMed ID: 9540092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Endodontic measurements in digital radiographs acquired by a photostimulable, storage phosphor system.
    Borg E; Gröndahl HG
    Endod Dent Traumatol; 1996 Feb; 12(1):20-4. PubMed ID: 8631285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Radiographic endodontic working length estimation: comparison of three digital image receptors.
    Athar A; Angelopoulos C; Katz JO; Williams KB; Spencer P
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2008 Oct; 106(4):604-8. PubMed ID: 18718798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The use of E-speed film for root canal length determination.
    Powell-Cullingford AW; Pitt Ford TR
    Int Endod J; 1993 Sep; 26(5):268-72. PubMed ID: 8300258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [Determination of the apical limits of instrumentation by subtraction using the paralleling radiographic technic. (Study contribution)].
    Solbo LJ; Pesce HF; Bombana AC
    Rev Faculdade Odontol FZL; 1989; 1(1):29-38. PubMed ID: 2701074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. An in vitro comparison of 10 radiographic methods for working length estimation.
    Rushton VE; Shearer AC; Horner K; Czajka J
    Int Endod J; 1995 May; 28(3):149-53. PubMed ID: 8626199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Radiographic "working length" revisited.
    Stein TJ; Corcoran JF
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1992 Dec; 74(6):796-800. PubMed ID: 1488238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Measurement algorithm accuracy of the RVG-PCi in vertical and diagonal assessments at various beam energies.
    Garlock JA; Scarfe WC; Kamer KR; Farman AG
    J Endod; 1996 Dec; 22(12):646-50. PubMed ID: 9220748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effects of voxel size and resolution on the accuracy of endodontic length measurement using cone beam computed tomography.
    Aktan AM; Yildirim C; Karataşlıoğlu E; Çiftçi ME; Aksoy F
    Ann Anat; 2016 Nov; 208():96-102. PubMed ID: 27339301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The reliability of artificial neural network in locating minor apical foramen: a cadaver study.
    Saghiri MA; Garcia-Godoy F; Gutmann JL; Lotfi M; Asgar K
    J Endod; 2012 Aug; 38(8):1130-4. PubMed ID: 22794221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of digital dental X-ray systems with self-developing film and manual processing for endodontic file length determination.
    Eikenberg S; Vandre R
    J Endod; 2000 Feb; 26(2):65-7. PubMed ID: 11194373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Dose reduction of two digital sensor systems measuring file lengths.
    Velders XL; Sanderink GC; van der Stelt PF
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1996 May; 81(5):607-12. PubMed ID: 8734712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effect of various digital processing algorithms on the measurement accuracy of endodontic file length.
    Kal BI; Baksi BG; Dündar N; Sen BH
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2007 Feb; 103(2):280-4. PubMed ID: 17234548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Effects of imaging system and exposure on accurate detection of the second mesio-buccal canal in maxillary molar teeth.
    Ramamurthy R; Scheetz JP; Clark SJ; Farman AG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2006 Dec; 102(6):796-802. PubMed ID: 17138184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. In vitro comparison of root-canal measurements with conventional and digital radiology.
    Lozano A; Forner L; Llena C
    Int Endod J; 2002 Jun; 35(6):542-50. PubMed ID: 12190912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography for estimation of canal length in curved canals.
    Burger CL; Mork TO; Hutter JW; Nicoll B
    J Endod; 1999 Apr; 25(4):260-3. PubMed ID: 10425952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.