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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9117764)

  • 21. A laboratory evaluation of Ektaspeed Plus dental X-ray film.
    Horner K; Rushton VE; Shearer AC
    J Dent; 1995 Dec; 23(6):359-63. PubMed ID: 8530727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [X-ray image detectors in stomatology].
    Gorelik FG
    Med Tekh; 1998; (6):17-9. PubMed ID: 9949983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Diagnostic accuracy of in vitro panoramic radiographs depending on the exposure.
    Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Reinert S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Feb; 36(2):68-74. PubMed ID: 17403882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Screen-film combinations used for cephalometric radiography.
    Hurlburt C
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1978 Nov; 46(5):721-4. PubMed ID: 280863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 1: phantom validity.
    Yoshiura K; Kawazu T; Chikui T; Tatsumi M; Tokumori K; Tanaka T; Kanda S
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Jan; 87(1):115-22. PubMed ID: 9927090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Clinical comparison of conventional and rare earth screen-film systems for cephalometric radiographs.
    Kaugars GE; Fatouros P
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1982 Mar; 53(3):322-5. PubMed ID: 6950349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Short communication: a comparison of fine and medium screens for mammography.
    Burch A; Law J
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Feb; 69(818):182-5. PubMed ID: 8785649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Automatic processing: effects of temperature and time changes on the sensitometric properties of light-sensitive films.
    Thunthy KH; Hashimoto K; Weinberg R
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1991 Jul; 72(1):112-8. PubMed ID: 1891230
    [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. Computed and conventional chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and radiation dose.
    Ramli K; Abdullah BJ; Ng KH; Mahmud R; Hussain AF
    Australas Radiol; 2005 Dec; 49(6):460-6. PubMed ID: 16351609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effect of kilovoltage on the relative speed of rare-earth screens.
    Thunthy KH; Weinberg R
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1986; 15(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 3460902
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Comparison of film-screen combination in a contrast detail diagram and with interactive image analysis. 1: Contrast detail diagram].
    Hagemann G; Eichbaum G
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Jul; 7(4):212-5. PubMed ID: 9340021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Objective and subjective assessments of Kodak Ektaspeed plus new dental X-ray film: a comparison with other conventional X-ray films.
    Kitagawa H; Farman AG; Wakoh M; Nishikawa K; Kuroyanagi K
    Bull Tokyo Dent Coll; 1995 May; 36(2):61-7. PubMed ID: 8689744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Films, screens and cassettes for mammography.
    Law J; Kirkpatrick AE
    Br J Radiol; 1989 Feb; 62(734):163-7. PubMed ID: 2924096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [Clinical evaluation of intensifying screens and films for intraoral radiography].
    Okano T; Yoda E
    Kokubyo Gakkai Zasshi; 1983 Mar; 50(1):155. PubMed ID: 6577111
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Presentation and physical evaluation of RadioVisioGraphy.
    Mouyen F; Benz C; Sonnabend E; Lodter JP
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Aug; 68(2):238-42. PubMed ID: 2780024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effect of developer temperature changes on the sensitometric properties of direct exposure and screen-film imaging systems.
    Kircos LT; Staninec M; Chou LS
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1989 Feb; 18(1):11-4. PubMed ID: 2599232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Digital image processing in cephalometric analysis.
    Jäger A; Döler W; Schormann T
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 1989; 99(1):19-23. PubMed ID: 2913641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Evaluation of radiographic image quality parameters obtained with the REX simulator.
    Magalhaes LA; Drexler GG; deAlmeida CE
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Nov; 147(4):614-8. PubMed ID: 21273198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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