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 *

240 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9927091)

  • 21. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy.
    Chotas HG; Ravin CE
    Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):679-82. PubMed ID: 11230639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. A comparison of the response of storage phosphor and film radiography to small variations in X-ray exposure.
    Hildebolt CF; Fletcher G; Yokoyama-Crothers N; Conover GL; Vannier MW
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 May; 26(3):147-51. PubMed ID: 9442600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. An ex vivo comparison of conventional and digital radiography for perceived image quality of root fillings.
    Akdeniz BG; Soğur E
    Int Endod J; 2005 Jun; 38(6):397-401. PubMed ID: 15910475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparative evaluation of the sensitometric properties of screen-film systems and conventional dental receptors for intraoral radiography.
    Kircos LT; Staninec M; Chou L
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Dec; 68(6):787-92. PubMed ID: 2594331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Stationary intraoral digital tomosynthesis using a carbon nanotube X-ray source array.
    Shan J; Tucker AW; Gaalaas LR; Wu G; Platin E; Mol A; Lu J; Zhou O
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(9):20150098. PubMed ID: 26090933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Radiation dosage reduction in general dental practice using digital intraoral radiographic systems.
    Hayakawa Y; Shibuya H; Ota Y; Kuroyanagi K
    Bull Tokyo Dent Coll; 1997 Feb; 38(1):21-5. PubMed ID: 9566150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Signal-to-noise ratios of 6 intraoral digital sensors.
    Attaelmanan AG; Borg E; Gröndahl HG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 May; 91(5):611-5. PubMed ID: 11346743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Detection of approximal caries with a storage phosphor system. A comparison of enhanced digital images with dental X-ray film.
    Møystad A; Svanaes DB; Risnes S; Larheim TA; Gröndahl HG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Sep; 25(4):202-6. PubMed ID: 9084274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Perceptibility curve test for digital radiographs before and after correction for attenuation and correction for attenuation and visual response.
    Li G; Welander U; Yoshiura K; Shi XQ; McDavid WD
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Nov; 32(6):372-8. PubMed ID: 15070839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparison of a photostimulable phosphor system with film for dental radiology.
    Huda W; Rill LN; Benn DK; Pettigrew JC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1997 Jun; 83(6):725-31. PubMed ID: 9195631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Current practice in conventional and digital intraoral radiography: problems and solutions.
    Fuhrmann AW
    Int J Comput Dent; 2006 Jan; 9(1):61-8. PubMed ID: 16608054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Sens-A-Ray. A new system for direct digital intraoral radiography.
    Nelvig P; Wing K; Welander U
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1992 Dec; 74(6):818-23. PubMed ID: 1488241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Radiation dose-reduction techniques in North American dental schools.
    Geist JR; Katz JO
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2002 Apr; 93(4):496-505. PubMed ID: 12029291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison between intraoral indirect and conventional film-based imaging for the detection of dental root fractures: an ex vivo study.
    Shintaku WH; Venturin JS; Noujeim M; Dove SB
    Dent Traumatol; 2013 Dec; 29(6):445-9. PubMed ID: 23566073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 40. Subjective image quality of solid-state and photostimulable phosphor systems for digital intra-oral radiography.
    Borg E; Attaelmanan A; Gröndahl HG
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Mar; 29(2):70-5. PubMed ID: 10808218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.