165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8843461)
21. Intraoral versus extraoral bitewing radiography in detection of enamel proximal caries: an ex vivo study.
Abu El-Ela WH; Farid MM; Mostafa MS
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(4):20150326. PubMed ID: 26892946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Detection accuracy of proximal caries by phosphor plate and cone-beam computerized tomography images scanned with different resolutions.
Cheng JG; Zhang ZL; Wang XY; Zhang ZY; Ma XC; Li G
Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Aug; 16(4):1015-21. PubMed ID: 21805053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Influence of displayed image size on radiographic detection of approximal caries.
Haak R; Wicht MJ; Nowak G; Hellmich M
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Jul; 32(4):242-6. PubMed ID: 13679355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Effect of tube potential and image receptor on the detection of natural proximal caries in primary teeth.
Sogur E; Baksı BG; Orhan K; Paksoy SC; Dogan S; Erdal YS; Mert A
Clin Oral Investig; 2011 Dec; 15(6):901-7. PubMed ID: 20838834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A comparative study of different radiographic methods for detecting occlusal caries lesions.
Tarım Ertas E; Küçükyılmaz E; Ertaş H; Savaş S; Yırcalı Atıcı M
Caries Res; 2014; 48(6):566-74. PubMed ID: 25073755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Effect of different background lighting conditions on diagnostic performance of digital and film images.
Cederberg RA; Frederiksen NL; Benson BW; Shulman JD
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 Sep; 27(5):293-7. PubMed ID: 9879219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparing the performance of storage phosphor plate and Insight film images for the detection of proximal caries depth.
Crombie K; Parker ME; Nortje CJ; Sanderink GC
SADJ; 2009 Nov; 64(10):452, 454-6, 458-9. PubMed ID: 20306863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of linear measurements made from storage phosphor and dental radiographs.
Conover GL; Hildebolt CF; Yokoyama-Crothers N
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Nov; 25(5):268-73. PubMed ID: 9161181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A sensitometric comparison of four dental X-ray films and their diagnostic accuracy.
Svenson B; Welander U; Shi XQ; Stamatakis H; Tronje G
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 Jul; 26(4):230-5. PubMed ID: 9442614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. RVG-S, VIXA, and Ektaspeed film in detection of proximal enamel defects under orthodontic bands.
Reichl P; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Goldsmith LJ
Angle Orthod; 1996; 66(1):65-72. PubMed ID: 8678348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A comparison of Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film and the Siemens Sidexis digital imaging system for caries detection using receiver operating characteristic analysis.
Tyndall DA; Ludlow JB; Platin E; Nair M
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Jan; 85(1):113-8. PubMed ID: 9474625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Influence of the validation method on diagnostic accuracy for caries. A comparison of six digital and two conventional radiographic systems.
Hintze H; Wenzel A
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Jan; 31(1):44-9. PubMed ID: 11803388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Two- and three-dimensional imaging modalities for the detection of caries. A comparison between film, digital radiography and tuned aperture computed tomography (TACT).
Abreu Júnior M; Tyndall DA; Platin E; Ludlow JB; Phillips C
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 May; 28(3):152-7. PubMed ID: 10740469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Influence of tube potential setting and dose on the visibility of lesions in intraoral radiography.
Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Reinert S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Feb; 36(2):75-9. PubMed ID: 17403883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Accuracy of extraoral tuned aperture computed tomography (TACT) for proximal caries detection.
Harase Y; Araki K; Okano T
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2006 Jun; 101(6):791-6. PubMed ID: 16731402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Interaction between noise and file compression and its effect on the recognition of caries in digital imaging.
Janhom A; van der Stelt PF; van Ginkel FC
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):20-7. PubMed ID: 10654032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Radiovisiographic diagnosis of dental caries: initial comparison of basic mode videoprints with bitewing radiography.
Russell M; Pitts NB
Caries Res; 1993; 27(1):65-70. PubMed ID: 8448777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Approximal caries diagnosis after data import from different digital radiography systems: interobserver agreement and comparison to histological hard-tissue sections.
Schulte AG; Wittchen A; Stachniss V; Jacquet W; Bottenberg P
Caries Res; 2008; 42(1):57-61. PubMed ID: 18063865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. In vitro comparison of four different dental X-ray films and direct digital radiography for proximal caries detection.
Alkurt MT; Peker I; Bala O; Altunkaynak B
Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):504-9. PubMed ID: 17910228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Endodontic measurements in digital radiographs acquired by a photostimulable, storage phosphor system.
Borg E; Gröndahl HG
Endod Dent Traumatol; 1996 Feb; 12(1):20-4. PubMed ID: 8631285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
