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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9927090)

  • 41. Reliability of CCD and CMOS (APS) digital sensors compared with D and E-plus-speed films in the detection of dental pathology: an in vitro study.
    Tsau JN; Mupparapu M
    Penn Dent J (Phila); 2001; 101():10-1. PubMed ID: 15484636
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Densitometric evaluation of intraoral x-ray films: Ektaspeed versus Ultraspeed.
    Kaffe I; Littner MM; Kuspet ME
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1984 Mar; 57(3):338-42. PubMed ID: 6584823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Image quality assessment and radiation doses in intraoral radiography.
    Yakoumakis EN; Tierris CE; Stefanou EP; Phanourakis IG; Proukakis CC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Mar; 91(3):362-8. PubMed ID: 11250637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Evaluation of a new F speed dental X-ray film. The effect of processing solutions and a comparison with D and E speed films.
    Farman TT; Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):41-5. PubMed ID: 10654035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Optimal processing of Ektaspeed dental film.
    Fjellström CA; Fredholm U; Julin P; Rehnmark S
    Swed Dent J; 1986; 10(4):137-43. PubMed ID: 3466376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. In vitro comparison of Kodak Ultra-speed, Ektaspeed, and Ektaspeed Plus, and Agfa M2 Comfort dental x-ray films for the detection of caries.
    Hintze H; Christoffersen L; Wenzel A
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1996 Feb; 81(2):240-4. PubMed ID: 8665322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. A comparison of a film-based and a direct digital dental radiographic system using a proximal caries model.
    Price C; Ergül N
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 Jan; 26(1):45-52. PubMed ID: 9446990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom.
    Lu ZF; Nickoloff EL; So JC; Dutta AK
    J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2003; 4(1):91-8. PubMed ID: 12540823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Optimum tube voltage for chest radiographs obtained by psychophysical analysis.
    Asai Y; Tanabe Y; Ozaki Y; Kubota H; Matsumoto M; Kanamori H
    Med Phys; 1998 Nov; 25(11):2170-5. PubMed ID: 9829241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Variations in film exposure, effective kVp, and HVL among thirty-five dental x-ray units.
    Preece JW; Jensen CW
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1983 Dec; 56(6):655-61. PubMed ID: 6581465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
    Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Mail survey of dental radiographic techniques and radiation doses in Greece.
    Syriopoulos K; Velders XL; van der Stelt PF; van Ginkel FC; Tsiklakis K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1998 Nov; 27(6):321-8. PubMed ID: 10895629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Subjective image quality of digitally filtered radiographs acquired by the Dürr Vistascan system compared with conventional radiographs.
    Yalcinkaya S; Künzel A; Willers R; Thoms M; Becker J
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2006 May; 101(5):643-51. PubMed ID: 16632278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. The effect of thin K-edge filters on the image quality of D- and E-speed dental film.
    MacDonald-Jankowski DS; Lawinski CP; Payne M
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Feb; 24(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 8593903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. An update on dental imaging.
    Whaites E; Brown J
    Br Dent J; 1998 Aug; 185(4):166-72. PubMed ID: 9769550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Radiation protection in dental X-ray surgeries--still rooms for improvement.
    Hart G; Dugdale M
    Br Dent J; 2013 Mar; 214(6):E16. PubMed ID: 23519002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Comparison of psychophysical properties of two intraoral digital sensors on low-contrast perceptibility.
    Shi XQ; Benchimol D; Näsström K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(10):20130249. PubMed ID: 24170798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. 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]  

  • 59. A comparison of Kodak Ultraspeed and Ektaspeed plus dental X-ray films for the detection of dental caries.
    Wong A; Monsour PA; Moule AJ; Basford KE
    Aust Dent J; 2002 Mar; 47(1):27-9. PubMed ID: 12035954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Effects of developer exhaustion on the sensitometric properties of four dental films.
    Syriopoulos K; Velders XL; Sanderink GC; van Ginkel FC; van der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Mar; 28(2):80-8. PubMed ID: 10522196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.