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 *

193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8015810)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Sensitometric properties of Agfa Dentus OrthoLux, Agfa Dentus ST8G, and Kodak Ektavision panoramic radiographic film.
    Wakoh M; Nishikawa K; Kobayashi N; Farman AG; Kuroyanagi K
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Feb; 91(2):244-51. PubMed ID: 11174605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Effects of developer exhaustion on DFL Contrast FV-58 and Kodak Insight dental films.
    de Carvalho FP; da Silveira MM; Frazão MA; de Santana ST; dos Anjos Pontual ML
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2011 Sep; 40(6):358-61. PubMed ID: 21831975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [Will the new highly intensifying film-screen combination of the Kodak T-MAT G/Lanex Regular meet the qualitative requirements of the lateral teleroentgenogram and orthopantomogram?].
    Schulz D; Bührmann K; Plein-Jakobs E; Jakobs W
    Fortschr Kieferorthop; 1988 Jun; 49(3):305-11. PubMed ID: 3165364
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Information yield: a comparison of Kodak T-Mat G, Ortho L and RP X-Omat films.
    Miles DA; Van Dis ML; Peterson MG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1989 Feb; 18(1):15-8. PubMed ID: 2599233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Objective and subjective assessments of Kodak Ektaspeed plus new dental X-ray film: a comparison with other conventional X-ray films.
    Kitagawa H; Farman AG; Wakoh M; Nishikawa K; Kuroyanagi K
    Bull Tokyo Dent Coll; 1995 May; 36(2):61-7. PubMed ID: 8689744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Sensitometric comparison of dental films of groups D and E.
    Thunthy KH; Weinberg R
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1982 Aug; 54(2):250-2. PubMed ID: 6956842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. A sensitometric evaluation of a dental radiographic developer additive.
    Price C
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1982 Apr; 53(4):429-32. PubMed ID: 6952156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Normalized sensitometric curves for the verification of hybrid IMRT treatment plans with multiple energies.
    Georg D; Kroupa B; Winkler P; Pötter R
    Med Phys; 2003 Jun; 30(6):1142-50. PubMed ID: 12852539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Kodak T-Mat G film in rotational panoramic radiography.
    Ponce AZ; McDavid WD; Lundeen RC; Morris CR
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1986 Jun; 61(6):649-52. PubMed ID: 3459998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Quality control of the automatic processor.
    Legg LM
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2001 Feb; 22(2):135-8, 140-2; quiz 144. PubMed ID: 11911065
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A comparison of a new dental X-ray film, Agfa Gevaert Dentus M4, with Kodak Ektaspeed and Ultraspeed dental X-ray films.
    Svenson B; Lindvall AM; Gröndahl HG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1993 Feb; 22(1):7-12. PubMed ID: 8508944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Processing of mammographic films: technical and clinical considerations.
    Tabar L; Haus AG
    Radiology; 1989 Oct; 173(1):65-9. PubMed ID: 2781032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparing the sensitometric properties of dental X-ray films.
    Wakoh M; Farman AG; Kelly MS; Kuroyanagi K
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1995 Mar; 126(3):341-4. PubMed ID: 7897103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Variation of the sensitometric characteristics of seven mammographic films with processing conditions.
    Tsalafoutas IA; Dimakopoulou AD; Koulentianos ED; Serefoglou AN; Yakoumakis EN
    Br J Radiol; 2004 Aug; 77(920):666-71. PubMed ID: 15326045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Densitometric properties of rapid manual processing solutions: abbreviated versus complete rapid processing.
    Geist JR; Gleason MJ
    J Endod; 1995 Apr; 21(4):180-4. PubMed ID: 7673817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Microbiologic contamination during dental radiographic film processing.
    Stanczyk DA; Paunovich ED; Broome JC; Fatone MA
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1993 Jul; 76(1):112-9. PubMed ID: 8351107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Evaluation of several Dupont portal film systems.
    Li H; Xu Z; Almond PR
    Med Dosim; 1996; 21(3):169-72. PubMed ID: 8899683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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