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)

  • 61. Standards for intraoral radiographic imaging.
    Farman AG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Sep; 29(5):257-9. PubMed ID: 10980558
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Quantitative determination of radio-opacity: equivalence of digital and film X-ray systems.
    Nomoto R; Mishima A; Kobayashi K; McCabe JF; Darvell BW; Watts DC; Momoi Y; Hirano S
    Dent Mater; 2008 Jan; 24(1):141-7. PubMed ID: 17923153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. A comparison of Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film and the Siemens Sidexis digital imaging system for caries detection using receiver operating characteristic analysis.
    Tyndall DA; Ludlow JB; Platin E; Nair M
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1998 Jan; 85(1):113-8. PubMed ID: 9474625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Effects of aluminum-copper alloy filtration on photon spectra, air kerma rate and image contrast.
    Gonçalves A; Rollo JM; Gonçalves M; Haiter Neto F; Bóscolo FN
    Braz Dent J; 2004; 15(3):214-9. PubMed ID: 15798826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Influence of time and exposure to air on radiographic contrast and relative film speed of three rapid dental film processing solutions.
    Matthee MJ; Seeliger JE; Prinsloo NJ; Swart NG
    J Dent Assoc S Afr; 1993 Jan; 48(1):5-8. PubMed ID: 9511608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Sensitometric evaluation of four dental X-ray films using five processing solutions.
    Syriopoulos K; Velders XL; Sanderink GC; van Ginkel FC; van der Stelt PF
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 Mar; 28(2):73-9. PubMed ID: 10522195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Sensitometric evaluation of a new F-speed dental radiographic film.
    Price C
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2001 Jan; 30(1):29-34. PubMed ID: 11175270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. On the dynamic range of different X-ray photon detectors in intra-oral radiography. A comparison of image quality in film, charge-coupled device and storage phosphor systems.
    Borg E; Gröndahl HG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Apr; 25(2):82-8. PubMed ID: 9446978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. A laboratory comparison of three imaging systems for image quality and radiation exposure characteristics.
    Bhaskaran V; Qualtrough AJ; Rushton VE; Worthington HV; Horner K
    Int Endod J; 2005 Sep; 38(9):645-52. PubMed ID: 16104978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. [A comparative study of analog and digital intraoral x-ray image detector systems].
    Blendl C; Stengel C; Zdunczyk S
    Rofo; 2000 Jun; 172(6):534-41. PubMed ID: 10916550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Comparing the sensitometric properties of dental X-ray films.
    Wakoh M; Farman AG; Kelly MS; Kuroyanagi K
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1995 Mar; 126(3):341-4. PubMed ID: 7897103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Use of a "sandwich" technique to control image geometry in clinical studies comparing intraoral xeroradiographs and E-speed films.
    Ludlow JB; Hill RA; Hayes CJ
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1988 May; 65(5):618-25. PubMed ID: 3163790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Lonizing radiation regulations and the dental practitioner: 3. Quality assurance in dental radiography.
    Rout J; Brown J
    Dent Update; 2012 Jun; 39(5):334-6, 338-9. PubMed ID: 22852511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Factors influencing the absorbed dose in intraoral radiography.
    Kaeppler G; Dietz K; Herz K; Reinert S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Dec; 36(8):506-13. PubMed ID: 18033949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Attitude of the Belgian dentist population towards radiation protection.
    Jacobs R; Vanderstappen M; Bogaerts R; Gijbels F
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Sep; 33(5):334-9. PubMed ID: 15585812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Characteristic curves of dental x-ray film.
    Havukainen R; Servomaa A
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1986 Jul; 62(1):107-9. PubMed ID: 3460001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. A clinical comparison of speed group D and E dental x-ray films.
    Horton PS; Sippy FH; Kohout FJ; Nelson JF; Kienzle GC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1984 Jul; 58(1):104-8. PubMed ID: 6589567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Niobium filtration of conventional and high-frequency x-ray generator beams for intraoral radiography. Effects on absorbed doses, image density and contrast, and photon spectra.
    Tetradis S; Scaf G; Lurie AG; Freedman ML
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1995 Aug; 80(2):232-41. PubMed ID: 7552890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. In vitro perception of low-contrast features in digital, film, and digitized dental radiographs: a receiver operating characteristic analysis.
    Grassl U; Schulze RK
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2007 May; 103(5):694-701. PubMed ID: 17466887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Effects of reduced exposure on computed radiography: comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom.
    Kimme-Smith C; Aberle DR; Sayre JW; Hart EM; Greaves SM; Brown K; Young DA; Deseran MD; Johnson T; Johnson SL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):269-73. PubMed ID: 7618538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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