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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8134430)

  • 1. Comparison of artifact from craniomaxillofacial internal fixation devices: magnetic resonance imaging.
    Fiala TG; Paige KT; Davis TL; Campbell TA; Rosen BR; Yaremchuk MJ
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 1994 Apr; 93(4):725-31. PubMed ID: 8134430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of CT imaging artifacts from craniomaxillofacial internal fixation devices.
    Fiala TG; Novelline RA; Yaremchuk MJ
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 1993 Dec; 92(7):1227-32. PubMed ID: 8248397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cranio-orbital reconstruction: safety and image quality of metallic implants on CT and MRI scanning.
    Sullivan PK; Smith JF; Rozzelle AA
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 1994 Oct; 94(5):589-96. PubMed ID: 7938281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of magnetic and radiographic imaging artifact after using three types of metal rods: stainless steel, titanium, and vitallium.
    Knott PT; Mardjetko SM; Kim RH; Cotter TM; Dunn MM; Patel ST; Spencer MJ; Wilson AS; Tager DS
    Spine J; 2010 Sep; 10(9):789-94. PubMed ID: 20619749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Computed tomography artifacts associated with craniofacial fixation devices: an experimental study.
    Anastakis DJ; Antonyshyn OM; Cooper PW; Yaffe MJ; Bush K; Mawdsley GE
    Ann Plast Surg; 1996 Oct; 37(4):349-55. PubMed ID: 8905041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effects of skeletal fixation on craniofacial imaging.
    Eppley BL; Sparks C; Herman E; Edwards M; McCarty M; Sadove AM
    J Craniofac Surg; 1993 Apr; 4(2):67-73. PubMed ID: 8324085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of MR issues for the latest standard brands of orthopedic metal implants: plates and screws.
    Zou YF; Chu B; Wang CB; Hu ZY
    Eur J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 84(3):450-457. PubMed ID: 25544555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Metallic spinal artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging.
    Vaccaro AR; Chesnut RM; Scuderi G; Healy JF; Massie JB; Garfin SR
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1994 Jun; 19(11):1237-42. PubMed ID: 8073315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Magnetic resonance imaging susceptibility artifacts in the cervical vertebrae and spinal cord related to monocortical screw-polymethylmethacrylate implants in canine cadavers.
    Jones BG; Fosgate GT; Green EM; Habing AM; Hettlich BF
    Am J Vet Res; 2017 Apr; 78(4):458-464. PubMed ID: 28346006
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Anterior and posterior cervical spine fixation using titanium implants to facilitate magnetic resonance imaging evaluation.
    Savolaine ER; Ebraheim NA; Andreshak TG; Jackson WT
    J Orthop Trauma; 1989; 3(4):295-9. PubMed ID: 2600696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Experimental studies addressing rigid fixation in craniofacial surgery.
    Yaremchuk MJ
    Clin Plast Surg; 1994 Oct; 21(4):517-24. PubMed ID: 7813152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A biomechanical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging-compatible wire in cervical spine fixation.
    Scuderi GJ; Greenberg SS; Cohen DS; Latta LL; Eismont FJ
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1993 Oct; 18(14):1991-4. PubMed ID: 8272948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Using the dGEMRIC technique to evaluate cartilage health in the presence of surgical hardware at 3T: comparison of inversion recovery and saturation recovery approaches.
    d'Entremont AG; Kolind SH; Mädler B; Wilson DR; MacKay AL
    Skeletal Radiol; 2014 Mar; 43(3):331-44. PubMed ID: 24357123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts and the magnetic attachment system.
    Iimuro FT
    Dent Mater J; 1994 Jun; 13(1):76-88. PubMed ID: 7842644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. New percutaneously inserted spinal fixation system.
    Teitelbaum GP; Shaolian S; McDougall CG; Preul MC; Crawford NR; Sonntag VK
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2004 Mar; 29(6):703-9. PubMed ID: 15014282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Biocompatibility of fixation materials in the brain.
    Mofid MM; Thompson RC; Pardo CA; Manson PN; Vander Kolk CA
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 1997 Jul; 100(1):14-20; discussion 21-2. PubMed ID: 9207654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Imaging of soft tissues adjacent to orthopedic hardware: comparison of 3-T and 1.5-T MRI.
    Farrelly C; Davarpanah A; Brennan SA; Sampson M; Eustace SJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Jan; 194(1):W60-4. PubMed ID: 20028892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Magnetic resonance imaging of titanium anterior cervical spine plating systems.
    Tominaga T; Shimizu H; Koshu K; Kayama T; Yoshimoto T
    Neurosurgery; 1995 May; 36(5):951-5. PubMed ID: 7791987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Implant Material, Type of Fixation at the Shaft, and Position of Plate Modify Biomechanics of Distal Femur Plate Osteosynthesis.
    Kandemir U; Augat P; Konowalczyk S; Wipf F; von Oldenburg G; Schmidt U
    J Orthop Trauma; 2017 Aug; 31(8):e241-e246. PubMed ID: 28394844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Optimizing imaging parameters for MR evaluation of the spine with titanium pedicle screws.
    Petersilge CA; Lewin JS; Duerk JL; Yoo JU; Ghaneyem AJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 May; 166(5):1213-8. PubMed ID: 8615272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.