127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9117764)
1. Evaluation of XD/A Plus and ST8G films for cephalometric radiography with Grenex G8 and BH-III screens.
Wakoh M; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Shibuya H; Nishikawa K; Kuroyanagi K
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1997 Feb; 83(2):293-9. PubMed ID: 9117764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Sensitometric effects of varying the intensifying screens used with Agfa Dentus ST8G and RP6 panoramic radiographic films.
Wakoh M; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Kitagawa H; Kuroyanagi K
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 Jul; 26(4):225-9. PubMed ID: 9442613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Sensitometric properties of Agfa Dentus OrthoLux, Agfa Dentus ST8G, and Kodak Ektavision panoramic radiographic film.
Wakoh M; Nishikawa K; Kobayashi N; Farman AG; Kuroyanagi K
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Feb; 91(2):244-51. PubMed ID: 11174605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A dual sensitivity screen system for TMJ image enhancement in cephalometric radiography: sensitometric evaluation.
Wakoh M; Farman AG; Nishikawa K; Kuroyanagi K; Scarfe WC; Braun S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Aug; 24(3):191-4. PubMed ID: 8617394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Film-screen systems: sensitometric comparison of Kodak Ektavision system to Kodak T-Mat/RA system.
Thunthy KH; Weinberg R
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1997 Feb; 83(2):288-92. PubMed ID: 9117763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Sensitometric comparison of direct- and indirect-exposure films used in intraoral radiography.
Hashimoto K; Thunthy KH; Iwai K; Ejima K; Weinberg R
J Nihon Univ Sch Dent; 1992 Jun; 34(2):106-10. PubMed ID: 1500950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography.
Dimakopoulou AD; Tsalafoutas IA; Georgiou EK; Yakoumakis EN
Br J Radiol; 2006 Feb; 79(938):123-9. PubMed ID: 16489193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparative evaluation of the sensitometric properties of screen-film systems and conventional dental receptors for intraoral radiography.
Kircos LT; Staninec M; Chou L
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Dec; 68(6):787-92. PubMed ID: 2594331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Imaging characteristics of new screen/film systems for cephalometric radiography.
Fatouros PP; Gibbs SJ; Skubic SE; Rao GU
Angle Orthod; 1984 Jan; 54(1):36-54. PubMed ID: 6584050
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessment of screen/film combinations for cephalometric radiography.
McNicol A; Stirrups DR
Br J Orthod; 1985 Jul; 12(3):117-21. PubMed ID: 3860251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The effect of dose reduction on the detection of anatomical structures on panoramic radiographs.
Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Reinert S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2006 Jul; 35(4):271-7. PubMed ID: 16798925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A sensitometric comparison of Kodak Ektavision and Fuji Super HR-S panoramic radiographic films.
Wakoh M; Farman AG; Kitagawa H; Nishikawa K; Kuroyanagi K
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Aug; 86(2):249-53. PubMed ID: 9720103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Exposure factors and screen-film combinations in temporomandibular joint radiography.
Thorburn DN; Stockdill DA; Kenyon RP; Cowan I; Ferguson MM
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1991 May; 20(2):87-92. PubMed ID: 1936423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Possibilities of dose reduction in lateral cephalometric radiographs and its effects on clinical diagnostics.
Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Reinert S
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Jan; 36(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 17329587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Absorbed radiation dose during lateral cephalometric radiography: comparison of screen-film systems and field-size combinations.
Tsiklakis K; Donta-Bakoyanni C; Tassopoulou M; Kamenopoulou V
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2000; 24(2):117-21. PubMed ID: 11314319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Faster screen/film combinations for cephalometric radiography.
Hurlburt CE
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1981 Dec; 52(6):661-5. PubMed ID: 6947192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Identification of the temporomandibular joint and adjacent cephalometric landmarks using a dual sensitivity screen-cassette system.
Hickman EW; Scarfe WC; Farman AG; Silviera A; Goldsmith J
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Nov; 25(5):274-82. PubMed ID: 9161182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A comparison of the response of storage phosphor and film radiography to small variations in X-ray exposure.
Hildebolt CF; Fletcher G; Yokoyama-Crothers N; Conover GL; Vannier MW
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 May; 26(3):147-51. PubMed ID: 9442600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional film, hardcopy, and monitor-displayed images obtained by the storage phosphor technique.
Geelen W; Wenzel A; Gotfredsen E; Kruger M; Hansson LG
Eur J Orthod; 1998 Jun; 20(3):331-40. PubMed ID: 9699411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Exposure reduction in cephalometric radiology: a comprehensive approach.
Tyndall DA; Matteson SR; Soltmann RE; Hamilton TL; Proffit WR
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1988 May; 93(5):400-12. PubMed ID: 3163219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
