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 *

90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9482001)

  • 1. Quantitative subtraction with direct digital dental radiography.
    Yoshioka T; Kobayashi C; Suda H; Sasaki T
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 Sep; 26(5):286-94. PubMed ID: 9482001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An observation of the healing process of periapical lesions by digital subtraction radiography.
    Yoshioka T; Kobayashi C; Suda H; Sasaki T
    J Endod; 2002 Aug; 28(8):589-91. PubMed ID: 12184420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Analysis of sensitivity and specificity of a new digital subtraction system: an in vitro study.
    Dove SB; McDavid WD; Hamilton KE
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2000 Jun; 89(6):771-6. PubMed ID: 10846136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Quantitative analysis of bone density in direct digital radiographs evaluated by means of computerized analysis of digital images.
    Morea C; Dominguez GC; Coutinho A; Chilvarquer I
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2010 Sep; 39(6):356-61. PubMed ID: 20729185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Correction of background noise in direct digital dental radiography.
    Yoshioka T; Kobayashi C; Suda H; Sasaki T
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Nov; 25(5):256-62. PubMed ID: 9161179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparative evaluation of JPEG and JPEG2000 compression in quantitative digital subtraction radiography.
    Fidler A; Likar B; Pernus F; Skaleric U
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Nov; 31(6):379-84. PubMed ID: 12424637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Impact of JPEG lossy image compression on quantitative digital subtraction radiography.
    Fidler A; Likar B; Pernus F; Skaleric U
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Mar; 31(2):106-12. PubMed ID: 12076050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A posteriori registration and subtraction of panoramic compared with intraoral radiography.
    Deserno TM; Rangarajan JR; Hoffmann J; Brägger U; Mericske-Stern R; Enkling N
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Aug; 108(2):e39-45. PubMed ID: 19615643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Analysis of the reproducibility of the gray values and noise of a direct digital radiography system.
    Poleti ML; Fernandes TM; Teixeira RC; Capelozza AL; Rubira-Bullen IR
    Braz Oral Res; 2015; 29():. PubMed ID: 26017488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy in detecting bone lesions in vitro with conventional and subtracted direct digital imaging.
    Stassinakis A; Brägger U; Stojanovic M; Bürgin W; Lussi A; Lang NP
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Nov; 24(4):232-7. PubMed ID: 9161167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of automatic exposure control in a direct digital intraoral system.
    Benchimol D; Näsström K; Shi X
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Sep; 38(6):407-12. PubMed ID: 19700535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy and reproducibility of conventional radiographic assessment and subtraction radiography in detecting demineralization in occlusal surfaces.
    Ricketts DN; Ekstrand KR; Martignon S; Ellwood R; Alatsaris M; Nugent Z
    Caries Res; 2007; 41(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 17284913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of bit depth and kVp of digital radiography for detection of subtle differences.
    Heo MS; Choi DH; Benavides E; Huh KH; Yi WJ; Lee SS; Choi SC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Aug; 108(2):278-83. PubMed ID: 19272812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The development of a new direct digital extra-oral radiographic system prototype using a thin-film transistor panel.
    Sakurai T; Matsuki T; Nakamura K; Kashima I; Lee DL; Cheung LK; Jeromin LS
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 May; 27(3):172-7. PubMed ID: 9693530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Limitations of the digital image subtraction technique in assessing alveolar bone crest changes due to misalignment errors during image capture.
    Benn DK
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1990 Aug; 19(3):97-104. PubMed ID: 2088789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of changes in dental and bone radiographic densities in the presence of different soft-tissue simulators using pixel intensity and digital subtraction analyses.
    de Molon RS; Batitucci RG; Spin-Neto R; Paquier GM; Sakakura CE; Tosoni GM; Scaf G
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(9):20130235. PubMed ID: 24005061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Influence of developer exhaustion on accuracy of quantitative digital subtraction radiography: an in vitro study.
    Fidler A; Likar B; Pernus F; Skaleric U
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2000 Aug; 90(2):233-9. PubMed ID: 10936844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Determination of the optimal conditions for dental subtraction radiography using a storage phosphor system.
    Brettle DS; Ellwood R; Davies R
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Jan; 28(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 10202471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of quantitative digital subtraction radiography for determining changes in calcium mass in mandibular bone: an in vitro study.
    Christgau M; Hiller KA; Schmalz G; Kolbeck C; Wenzel A
    J Periodontal Res; 1998 Apr; 33(3):138-49. PubMed ID: 9651875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reproducibility of and file format effect on digital subtraction radiography of simulated external root resorptions.
    Gegler A; Mahl C; Fontanella V
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2006 Jan; 35(1):10-3. PubMed ID: 16421257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.