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 *

159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9720100)

  • 1. Effects of dose reduction on the detectability of standardized radiolucent lesions in digital panoramic radiography.
    Dula K; Sanderink G; van der Stelt PF; Mini R; Buser D
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Aug; 86(2):227-33. PubMed ID: 9720100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Radiation dose reduction in direct digital panoramic radiography.
    Gavala S; Donta C; Tsiklakis K; Boziari A; Kamenopoulou V; Stamatakis HC
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Jul; 71(1):42-8. PubMed ID: 18448296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Dose measurements comparing conventional and digital panoramic radiography].
    Visser H; Hermann KP; Bredemeier S; Köhler B
    Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir; 2000 Jul; 4(4):213-6. PubMed ID: 10994319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A phantom study for ground-glass nodule detectability using chest digital tomosynthesis with iterative reconstruction algorithm by ten observers: association with radiation dose and nodular characteristics.
    Miyata K; Nagatani Y; Ikeda M; Takahashi M; Nitta N; Matsuo S; Ohta S; Otani H; Nitta-Seko A; Murakami Y; Tsuchiya K; Inoue A; Misaki S; Erdenee K; Kida T; Murata K
    Br J Radiol; 2017 Mar; 90(1071):20160555. PubMed ID: 28102693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of panoramic radiography and panoramic digital subtraction radiography in the detection of simulated osteophytic lesions of the mandibular condyle.
    Masood F; Katz JO; Hardman PK; Glaros AG; Spencer P
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2002 May; 93(5):626-31. PubMed ID: 12075216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Paediatric absorbed doses from rotational panoramic radiography.
    Hayakawa Y; Kobayashi N; Kuroyanagi K; Nishizawa K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Sep; 30(5):285-92. PubMed ID: 11571549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Optimization of exposure in panoramic radiography while maintaining image quality using adaptive filtering.
    Svenson B; Larsson L; Båth M
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2016; 74(3):229-35. PubMed ID: 26478956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A comparison between panoramic digital and digitized images to detect simulated periapical lesions using radiographic subtraction.
    Miguens SA; Veeck EB; Fontanella VR; da Costa NP
    J Endod; 2008 Dec; 34(12):1500-3. PubMed ID: 19026882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Radiation doses of indirect and direct digital cephalometric radiography.
    Gijbels F; Sanderink G; Wyatt J; Van Dam J; Nowak B; Jacobs R
    Br Dent J; 2004 Aug; 197(3):149-52; discussion 140. PubMed ID: 15311250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Dosimetry of digital panoramic imaging. Part I: Patient exposure.
    Gijbels F; Jacobs R; Bogaerts R; Debaveye D; Verlinden S; Sanderink G
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2005 May; 34(3):145-9. PubMed ID: 15897284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Dosimetry of digital panoramic imaging. Part II: Occupational exposure.
    Gijbels F; Jacobs R; Debaveye D; Bogaerts R; Verlinden S; Sanderink G
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2005 May; 34(3):150-3. PubMed ID: 15897285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of dose reduction in digital dental panoramic radiography on image quality.
    Dannewitz B; Hassfeld S; Eickholz P; Mühling J
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Jan; 31(1):50-5. PubMed ID: 11803389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Charge-coupled device panoramic radiography: effect of beam energy on radiation exposure.
    Farman TT; Farman AG; Kelly MS; Firriolo FJ; Yancey JM; Stewart AV
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 Jan; 27(1):36-40. PubMed ID: 9482021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Does dose optimisation in digital panoramic radiography affect diagnostic performance?
    Martins LAC; Brasil DM; Forner LA; Viccari C; Haiter-Neto F; Freitas DQ; Oliveira ML
    Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Feb; 25(2):637-643. PubMed ID: 32845471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Digital radiography: the standard of care.
    Samaras CD
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2008 Oct; 29(8):506, 508-9. PubMed ID: 18935789
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Organ doses and subjective image quality of indirect digital panoramic radiography.
    Gijbels F; Sanderink G; Bou Serhal C; Pauwels H; Jacobs R
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Nov; 30(6):308-13. PubMed ID: 11641728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Dosimetry analysis of panoramic-imaging devices in different-sized phantoms.
    Wahid MA; Choi E; MacDonald DS; Ford NL
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2017 Mar; 18(2):197-205. PubMed ID: 28300383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of x-radiation doses between conventional and rare earth panoramic radiographic techniques.
    Skoczylas LJ; Preece JW; Langlais RP; McDavid WD; Waggener RG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Dec; 68(6):776-81. PubMed ID: 2594329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Dosimetry of a cone-beam computed tomography machine compared with a digital x-ray machine in orthodontic imaging.
    Grünheid T; Kolbeck Schieck JR; Pliska BT; Ahmad M; Larson BE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2012 Apr; 141(4):436-43. PubMed ID: 22464525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Optimisation of patient doses in programmable dental panoramic radiography.
    Lecomber AR; Downes SL; Mokhtari M; Faulkner K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Mar; 29(2):107-12. PubMed ID: 10808225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.