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

208 related items for PubMed ID: 18033949

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Possibilities of dose reduction in lateral cephalometric radiographs and its effects on clinical diagnostics.
    Kaeppler G, Dietz K, Reinert S.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Jan; 36(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 17329587
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Estimation of absorbed organ doses and effective dose based on body mass index in digital radiography.
    Kim H, Park M, Park S, Jeong H, Kim J, Kim Y.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Jan; 153(1):92-9. PubMed ID: 22772453
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Investigation of dose reduction in neonatal radiography using specially designed phantoms and LiF:Mg,Cu,P TLDs.
    Duggan L, Warren-Forward H, Smith T, Kron T.
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Apr; 76(904):232-7. PubMed ID: 12711642
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. The effect of beam tube potential variation on gonad dose to patients during chest radiography investigated using high sensitivity LiF:Mg,Cu,P thermoluminescent dosemeters.
    Fung KK, Gilboy WB.
    Br J Radiol; 2001 Apr; 74(880):358-67. PubMed ID: 11387155
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape.
    Siegel MJ, Schmidt B, Bradley D, Suess C, Hildebolt C.
    Radiology; 2004 Nov; 233(2):515-22. PubMed ID: 15358847
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. [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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. A phantom approach to find the optimal technical parameters for plain chest radiography.
    Vassileva J.
    Br J Radiol; 2004 Aug; 77(920):648-53. PubMed ID: 15326041
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Optimum exposure ranges for computed dental radiography.
    Hayakawa Y, Farman AG, Scarfe WC, Kuroyanagi K, Rumack PM, Schick DB.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Apr; 25(2):71-5. PubMed ID: 9446976
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 11.