122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8108102)
1. Sensor noise in direct digital imaging (the RadioVisioGraphy, Sens-a-Ray, and Visualix/Vixa systems) evaluated by subtraction radiography.
Wenzel A
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Jan; 77(1):70-4. PubMed ID: 8108102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Image quality of direct digital intraoral x-ray sensors in assessing root canal length. The RadioVisioGraphy, Visualix/VIXA, Sens-A-Ray, and Flash Dent systems compared with Ektaspeed films.
Sanderink GC; Huiskens R; van der Stelt PF; Welander US; Stheeman SE
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Jul; 78(1):125-32. PubMed ID: 8078654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Resolution as defined by line spread and modulation transfer functions for four digital intraoral radiographic systems.
Welander U; McDavid WD; Sanderink GC; Tronje G; Mörner AC; Dove SB
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Jul; 78(1):109-15. PubMed ID: 8078652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Radiation dosage reduction in general dental practice using digital intraoral radiographic systems.
Hayakawa Y; Shibuya H; Ota Y; Kuroyanagi K
Bull Tokyo Dent Coll; 1997 Feb; 38(1):21-5. PubMed ID: 9566150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Image homogeneity and recording reproducibility with 2 techniques for serial intra-oral radiography.
Sander L; Wenzel A; Hintze H; Karring T
J Periodontol; 1996 Dec; 67(12):1288-91. PubMed ID: 8997675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Sources of noise in digital subtraction radiography.
Wenzel A; Sewerin I
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1991 Apr; 71(4):503-8. PubMed ID: 2052339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Absolute measures of image quality for the Sens-A-Ray direct digital intraoral radiography system.
Welander U; McDavid WD; Mörner AC; Tronje G; Tokuoka O; Fuchihata H; Nelvig P; Dove SB
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1995 Sep; 80(3):345-50. PubMed ID: 7489279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Performance for obtaining maximal gain from a program for digital subtraction radiography.
Aagaard E; Donslund C; Wenzel A; Sewerin I
Scand J Dent Res; 1991 Apr; 99(2):166-72. PubMed ID: 2052898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Sens-A-Ray characteristics with variations in beam quality.
Harada T; Nishikawa K; Shibuya H; Hayakawa Y; Kuroyanagi K
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1995 Jul; 80(1):120-3. PubMed ID: 7552852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Direct digital dental x-ray imaging with visualix/VIXA.
Molteni R
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1993 Aug; 76(2):235-43. PubMed ID: 8361738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Film-less digital x-ray image processing--new prospects with the RadioVisioGraphy equipment].
Mairgünther RH
Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 1994; 104(1):31-4. PubMed ID: 8108689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Signal-to-noise ratios of 6 intraoral digital sensors.
Attaelmanan AG; Borg E; Gröndahl HG
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 May; 91(5):611-5. PubMed ID: 11346743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of stent versus laser- and cephalostat-aligned periapical film-positioning techniques for use in digital subtraction radiography.
Ludlow JB; Peleaux CP
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Feb; 77(2):208-15. PubMed ID: 8139840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Computer-assisted subtraction radiography in periodontal diagnosis.
Gröndahl K
Swed Dent J Suppl; 1987; 50():1-44. PubMed ID: 3321498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Some characteristics of solid-state and photo-stimulable phosphor detectors for intra-oral radiography.
Borg E
Swed Dent J Suppl; 1999; 139():i-viii, 1-67. PubMed ID: 10635104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effects of filtration, collimation, and target-receptor distance on artificial approximal enamel lesion detection with the use of RadioVisioGraphy.
Parks ET; Miles DA; Van Dis ML; Williamson GF; Razmus TF; Bricker SL
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Apr; 77(4):419-26. PubMed ID: 8015809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effect of independent film and object rotation on projective geometric standardization of dental radiographs.
Fisher E; van der Stelt PF; Ostuni J; Dunn SM
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Feb; 24(1):5-12. PubMed ID: 8593908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. In vitro comparison of D- and E-speed film radiography, RVG, and visualix digital radiography for the detection of enamel approximal and dentinal occlusal caries lesions.
Hintze H; Wenzel A; Jones C
Caries Res; 1994; 28(5):363-7. PubMed ID: 8001059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [The measurement parameters in dental radiography: a comparison between traditional and digital technics].
Lazzerini F; Minorati D; Nessi R; Gagliani M; Uslenghi CM
Radiol Med; 1996 Apr; 91(4):364-9. PubMed ID: 8643845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
