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 *

198 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9103793)

  • 1. Estimating distances on direct digital images and conventional radiographs.
    Versteeg KH; Sanderink GC; van Ginkel FC; van der Stelt PF
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1997 Apr; 128(4):439-43. PubMed ID: 9103793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Interpretation of endodontic file lengths using RadioVisiography.
    Leddy BJ; Miles DA; Newton CW; Brown CE
    J Endod; 1994 Nov; 20(11):542-5. PubMed ID: 7643038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clarity and diagnostic quality of digitized conventional intraoral radiographs.
    Goga R; Chandler NP; Love RM
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Mar; 33(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 15314002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy of film-based, digital, and enhanced digital images for endodontic length determination.
    Woolhiser GA; Brand JW; Hoen MM; Geist JR; Pikula AA; Pink FE
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2005 Apr; 99(4):499-504. PubMed ID: 15772601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Radiographic determination of canal length direct digital radiography versus conventional radiography.
    Hedrick RT; Dove SB; Peters DD; McDavid WD
    J Endod; 1994 Jul; 20(7):320-6. PubMed ID: 7996092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Efficacy of several digital radiographic imaging systems for laboratory determination of endodontic file length.
    Oliveira ML; Ambrosano GM; Almeida SM; Haiter-Neto F; Tosoni GM
    Int Endod J; 2011 May; 44(5):469-73. PubMed ID: 21276021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of digital and geometric unsharpness in dental radiographs using an endodontic file model.
    Radan E; Price C
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2002 Feb; 93(2):208-14. PubMed ID: 11862213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparison of digitally scanned radiographs with conventional film for the detection of small endodontic instruments.
    Fuge KN; Stuck AM; Love RM
    Int Endod J; 1998 Mar; 31(2):123-6. PubMed ID: 9868939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Endodontic working length assessment. Comparison of storage phosphor digital imaging and radiographic film.
    Cederberg RA; Tidwell E; Frederiksen NL; Benson BW
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Mar; 85(3):325-8. PubMed ID: 9540092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of combined digital imaging parameters on endodontic file measurements.
    de Oliveira ML; Pinto GC; Ambrosano GM; Tosoni GM
    J Endod; 2012 Oct; 38(10):1404-7. PubMed ID: 22980188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of digital dental X-ray systems with self-developing film and manual processing for endodontic file length determination.
    Eikenberg S; Vandre R
    J Endod; 2000 Feb; 26(2):65-7. PubMed ID: 11194373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of ambient light and bit depth of digital radiograph on observer performance in determination of endodontic file positioning.
    Heo MS; Han DH; An BM; Huh KH; Yi WJ; Lee SS; Choi SC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2008 Feb; 105(2):239-44. PubMed ID: 17604662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Radiovisiography versus conventional radiography for detection of small instruments in endodontic length determination. II. In vivo evaluation.
    Ellingsen MA; Hollender LG; Harrington GW
    J Endod; 1995 Oct; 21(10):516-20. PubMed ID: 8596074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Radiographic and electronic diagnostic systems.
    McDonald NJ
    Alpha Omegan; 1991; 84(4):45-8. PubMed ID: 1819963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reduction in size of digital images: does it lead to less detectability or loss of diagnostic information?
    Versteeg CH; Sanderink GC; Lobach SR; van der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 Mar; 27(2):93-6. PubMed ID: 9656873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Canal length evaluation of curved canals by direct digital or conventional radiography.
    Mentes A; Gencoglu N
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2002 Jan; 93(1):88-91. PubMed ID: 11805781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Measurement of the distance between the minor foramen and the anatomic apex by digital and conventional radiography.
    Melius B; Jiang J; Zhu Q
    J Endod; 2002 Feb; 28(2):125-6. PubMed ID: 11833685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The use of high-resolution digital imaging technology for small diameter K-file length determination in endodontics.
    Vandenberghe B; Bud M; Sutanto A; Jacobs R
    Clin Oral Investig; 2010 Apr; 14(2):223-31. PubMed ID: 19452176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Radiovisiography versus conventional radiography for detection of small instruments in endodontic length determination. Part 1. In vitro evaluation.
    Ellingsen MA; Harrington GW; Hollender LG
    J Endod; 1995 Jun; 21(6):326-31. PubMed ID: 7673842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.