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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8108102)

  • 21. Noise in subtraction images made from pairs of intraoral radiographs: a comparison between four methods of geometric alignment.
    Kozakiewicz M; Bogusiak K; Hanclik M; Denkowski M; Arkuszewski P
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2008 Jan; 37(1):40-6. PubMed ID: 18195254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Quantitative analysis of apical root resorption by means of digital subtraction radiography.
    Heo MS; Lee SS; Lee KH; Choi HM; Choi SC; Park TW
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Mar; 91(3):369-73. PubMed ID: 11250638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Modulation transfer function of a digital dental x-ray system.
    Chen SK; Hollender L
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Mar; 77(3):308-13. PubMed ID: 8170666
    [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. Effect of logarithmic contrast enhancement on subtraction images.
    Versteeg KH; van der Stelt PF
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1995 Oct; 80(4):479-86. PubMed ID: 8521113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Sens-A-Ray. A new system for direct digital intraoral radiography.
    Nelvig P; Wing K; Welander U
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1992 Dec; 74(6):818-23. PubMed ID: 1488241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Criteria for the assessment of intrinsic performances of digital radiographic intraoral sensors.
    Mondou D; Bonnet E; Coudert JL; Jourlin M; Molteni R; Pachod V
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Sep; 3(9):751-7. PubMed ID: 8883516
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Assessment of three methods of geometric image reconstruction for digital subtraction radiography.
    Queiroz PM; Oliveira ML; Tanaka JL; Soares MG; Haiter-Neto F; Ono E
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(7):20160120. PubMed ID: 27376702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Noise in subtraction images made from pairs of bitewing radiographs: a comparison between two subtraction programs.
    Haiter-Neto F; Wenzel A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2005 Nov; 34(6):357-61. PubMed ID: 16227479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Analysis of the reproducibility of the gray values and noise of a direct digital radiography system.
    Poleti ML; Fernandes TM; Teixeira RC; Capelozza AL; Rubira-Bullen IR
    Braz Oral Res; 2015; 29():. PubMed ID: 26017488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Detection of mineral loss in approximal enamel by subtraction radiography.
    Halse A; Espelid I; Tveit AB; White SC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Feb; 77(2):177-82. PubMed ID: 8139837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A laboratory comparison of three imaging systems for image quality and radiation exposure characteristics.
    Bhaskaran V; Qualtrough AJ; Rushton VE; Worthington HV; Horner K
    Int Endod J; 2005 Sep; 38(9):645-52. PubMed ID: 16104978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Dependency of dose response of five charge-coupled device-based digital intra-oral radiographic systems on tube voltage.
    Nishikawa K; Shibuya H; Wakoh M; Kuroyanagi K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Nov; 28(6):364-7. PubMed ID: 10578191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Observers' use of image enhancement in assessing caries in radiographs taken by four intra-oral digital systems.
    Gotfredsen E; Wenzel A; Gröndahl HG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Jan; 25(1):34-8. PubMed ID: 9084283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. In vivo determination of radiographic projection errors produced by a novel filmholder and an x-ray beam manipulator.
    Zappa U; Simona C; Graf H; van Aken J
    J Periodontol; 1991 Nov; 62(11):674-83. PubMed ID: 1753320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Subjective image quality of solid-state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intra-oral radiography.
    Borg E; Attaelmanan A; Gröndahl HG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Mar; 29(2):70-5. PubMed ID: 10808218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Estimated skin exposure as an indicator for comparing radiovisiography (RVG) versus conventional Ektaspeed Plus dental radiography.
    Jones GA; Schuman NJ; Woods MA
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1998; 22(2):121-3. PubMed ID: 9643185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Optical densities of dental resin composites: a comparison of CCD, storage phosphor, and Ektaspeed plus radiographic film.
    Farman TT; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Goldsmith LJ
    Gen Dent; 1996; 44(6):532-7. PubMed ID: 9515395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Correction of background noise in direct digital dental radiography.
    Yoshioka T; Kobayashi C; Suda H; Sasaki T
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Nov; 25(5):256-62. PubMed ID: 9161179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effects of small angle discrepancies on interpretations of subtraction images.
    Davis M; Allen KM; Hausmann E
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Sep; 78(3):397-400. PubMed ID: 7970605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.