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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

95 related items for PubMed ID: 16227478

  • 21.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. Discrimination between restorative dental materials by their radiopacity measured in film radiographs and digital images.
    Wenzel A, Hintze H, Hørsted-Bindslev P.
    J Forensic Odontostomatol; 1998 Jun; 16(1):8-13. PubMed ID: 9922755
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. Exposure times at which dental xeroradiographs and radiographs have comparable optical density.
    Alexander JB, Andrews JD.
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1988 Sep; 66(3):359-64. PubMed ID: 3174071
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. A study of the effects of lead foil in dental X-ray film packets on radiographic image quality.
    Araki K, Kanda S, Toyofuku F.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1993 Nov; 22(4):179-82. PubMed ID: 8181643
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. A Subjective Assessment of Perceived Clarity of Indirect Digital Images and Processed Digital Images with Conventional Intra-oral Periapical Radiographs.
    Malleshi SN, V G M, Raina A, Patil K.
    J Clin Diagn Res; 2013 Aug; 7(8):1793-6. PubMed ID: 24086916
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. IT-based evaluation and automatic improvement of the quality of intraoral radiographs.
    Koch S, Wagner IV, Seipel S, Schneider W.
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 1995 Jan; 46(1):41-50. PubMed ID: 7743780
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. Diagnostic accuracy of digitized conventional radiographs by camera and scanner in detection of proximal caries.
    Valizadeh S, Tavakoli MA, Zarabian T, Esmaeili F.
    J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects; 2009 Jan; 3(4):126-31. PubMed ID: 23230500
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. A comparison of three statistics for detecting differences in digitized dental radiographs: a simulation study.
    Cohen ME, Roddy WC.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1995 Aug; 24(3):179-84. PubMed ID: 8617392
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Effect of image enhancement for detectability of bone lesions in digitized intraoral radiographs.
    Wenzel A.
    Scand J Dent Res; 1988 Apr; 96(2):149-60. PubMed ID: 3162600
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 5.