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 *

77 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7835508)

  • 61. The way we were (and how we got here): fifty years of technology changes in dental and maxillofacial radiology.
    Molteni R
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2021 Jan; 50(1):20200133. PubMed ID: 32525697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. The influence of tube potential on periodontal bone level measurements and subjective image quality using a digital photostimulable storage phosphor sensor.
    Vandenberghe B; Jacobs R
    J Oral Maxillofac Res; 2010; 1(1):e5. PubMed ID: 24421961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Modern dental imaging: a review of the current technology and clinical applications in dental practice.
    Vandenberghe B; Jacobs R; Bosmans H
    Eur Radiol; 2010 Nov; 20(11):2637-55. PubMed ID: 20544352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. A comprehensive in vitro study of image accuracy and quality for periodontal diagnosis. Part 1: the influence of X-ray generator on periodontal measurements using conventional and digital receptors.
    Vandenberghe B; Corpas L; Bosmans H; Yang J; Jacobs R
    Clin Oral Investig; 2011 Aug; 15(4):537-49. PubMed ID: 20443035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Development of a novel digital subtraction technique for detecting subtle changes in jawbone density.
    Du Tré F; Jacobs R; Styven S; van Steenberghe D
    Clin Oral Investig; 2006 Sep; 10(3):235-48. PubMed ID: 16770624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Influence of scattered radiation and tube potential on radiographic contrast: comparison of two different dental X-ray films.
    Helmrot E; Carlsson GA; Eckerdal O; Sandborg M
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1991 Aug; 20(3):135-46. PubMed ID: 1807997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Niobium filtration of conventional and high-frequency x-ray generator beams for intraoral radiography. Effects on absorbed doses, image density and contrast, and photon spectra.
    Tetradis S; Scaf G; Lurie AG; Freedman ML
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1995 Aug; 80(2):232-41. PubMed ID: 7552890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Densitometric evaluation of intraoral x-ray films: Ektaspeed versus Ultraspeed.
    Kaffe I; Littner MM; Kuspet ME
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1984 Mar; 57(3):338-42. PubMed ID: 6584823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. A radiographic method for measuring radiation dose based on beam quality.
    Syriopoulos K; Velders XL; Geraets WG; van der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 Sep; 27(5):287-92. PubMed ID: 9879218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. [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]  

  • 71. Effects of contrast equalization on energy imparted to the patient: a comparison of two dental generators and two types of intraoral film.
    Helmrot E; Carlsson GA; Eckerdal O
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1994 May; 23(2):83-90. PubMed ID: 7835508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]     [New Search]
    of 4.