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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7962896)

  • 1. A laboratory evaluation of four quality control devices for radiographic processing.
    Rushton VE; Horner K
    J Dent; 1994 Aug; 22(4):213-22. PubMed ID: 7962896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A laboratory evaluation of Ektaspeed Plus dental X-ray film.
    Horner K; Rushton VE; Shearer AC
    J Dent; 1995 Dec; 23(6):359-63. PubMed ID: 8530727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Densitometric evaluation of intra-oral radiographic film-processing solution combinations.
    Swart TJ; Seeliger JE
    J Dent Assoc S Afr; 1989 Jul; 44(7):281-3. PubMed ID: 2637510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. E-speed dental films processed with rapid chemistry: a comparison with D-speed film.
    Kaffe I; Gratt BM
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1987 Sep; 64(3):367-72. PubMed ID: 3477753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Densitometric evaluation of four rapid dental film processing solutions.
    Matthee MJ; Seeliger JE
    J Dent Assoc S Afr; 1991 Sep; 46(9):467-9. PubMed ID: 1820681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of a new F speed dental X-ray film. The effect of processing solutions and a comparison with D and E speed films.
    Farman TT; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):41-5. PubMed ID: 10654035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of radiographic image quality parameters obtained with the REX simulator.
    Magalhaes LA; Drexler GG; deAlmeida CE
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Nov; 147(4):614-8. PubMed ID: 21273198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Variations in film exposure, effective kVp, and HVL among thirty-five dental x-ray units.
    Preece JW; Jensen CW
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1983 Dec; 56(6):655-61. PubMed ID: 6581465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The accuracy of an x-ray film quality-assurance step-wedge test.
    Bloxom RM; Manson-Hing LR
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1986 Oct; 62(4):449-58. PubMed ID: 3464919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sensitometric comparison of speed group E and F dental radiographic films.
    Geist JR; Brand JW
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 May; 30(3):147-52. PubMed ID: 11420626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Densitometric evaluation of seven dental film processing solutions.
    Matthee MJ; Seeliger JE
    J Dent Assoc S Afr; 1990 Feb; 45(2):31-3. PubMed ID: 2385845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Automatic processing: effects of temperature and time changes on the sensitometric properties of light-sensitive films.
    Thunthy KH; Hashimoto K; Weinberg R
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1991 Jul; 72(1):112-8. PubMed ID: 1891230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 1: phantom validity.
    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):115-22. PubMed ID: 9927090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Image quality assessment and radiation doses in intraoral radiography.
    Yakoumakis EN; Tierris CE; Stefanou EP; Phanourakis IG; Proukakis CC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Mar; 91(3):362-8. PubMed ID: 11250637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assessing the quality of radiographic processing in general dental practice.
    Thornley PH; Stewardson DA; Rout PG; Burke FJ
    Br Dent J; 2006 May; 200(9):515-9; discussion 503. PubMed ID: 16703095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Use of a "sandwich" technique to control image geometry in clinical studies comparing intraoral xeroradiographs and E-speed films.
    Ludlow JB; Hill RA; Hayes CJ
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1988 May; 65(5):618-25. PubMed ID: 3163790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Perceived quality of radiographic images after rapid processing of D- and F-speed direct-exposure intraoral x-ray films.
    Bernstein DI; Clark SJ; Scheetz JP; Farman AG; Rosenson B
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2003 Oct; 96(4):486-91. PubMed ID: 14561976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Survey of dental radiological practice in Turkey.
    Ilgüy D; Ilgüy M; Dinçer S; Bayirli G
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2005 Jul; 34(4):222-7. PubMed ID: 15961596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effect of automated nonroller processing on the sensitometric characteristics of 3 intraoral film types.
    Geist JR; Brand JW; Pink FE
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2003 Jul; 96(1):102-11. PubMed ID: 12847452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.