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.
23. Evaluation of mini-implant sites in the posterior maxilla using traditional radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography. Abbassy MA, Sabban HM, Hassan AH, Zawawi KH. Saudi Med J; 2015 Nov; 36(11):1336-41. PubMed ID: 26593168 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Comparison of mesiodistal space measurements of single-implant sites on panoramic and oblique images generated by cone-beam CT. Alkhader M, Hudieb M. Surg Radiol Anat; 2014 Apr; 36(3):255-8. PubMed ID: 23978871 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Calcification in the stylohyoid ligament. O Carroll MK. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1984 Nov; 58(5):617-21. PubMed ID: 6595625 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of Panoramic Radiography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography for the Detection of Tonsilloliths. Ozdede M, Akay G, Karadag O, Peker I. Med Princ Pract; 2020 Nov; 29(3):279-284. PubMed ID: 31842016 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. [Calcifications in the maxillofacial area]. Németh Bertalan, Pataky L, Arpád JF, Koppany F, Barabás J. Fogorv Sz; 2015 Sep; 108(3):81-6. PubMed ID: 26731963 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Relationships between bone density values from cone beam computed tomography, maximum insertion torque, and resonance frequency analysis at implant placement: a pilot study. Fuster-Torres MÁ, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011 Sep; 26(5):1051-6. PubMed ID: 22010089 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Calcification of the stylohyoid ligament: incidence and morphoquantitative evaluations. Ferrario VF, Sigurtá D, Daddona A, Dalloca L, Miani A, Tafuro F, Sforza C. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1990 Apr; 69(4):524-9. PubMed ID: 2326043 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparing the precision of panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography in avoiding anatomical structures critical to dental implant surgery: A retrospective study. Özalp Ö, Tezerişener HA, Kocabalkan B, Büyükkaplan UŞ, Özarslan MM, Şimşek Kaya G, Altay MA, Sindel A. Imaging Sci Dent; 2018 Dec; 48(4):269-275. PubMed ID: 30607351 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Current trends in the adoption and education of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography machines across Australia. Lam M, Critchley S, Zhang A, Monsour P. Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2021 Jul 01; 50(5):20200380. PubMed ID: 33449832 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Impact of cone-beam computed tomography on implant planning and on prediction of implant size. Mello LA, Garcia RR, Leles JL, Leles CR, Silva MA. Braz Oral Res; 2014 Jul 01; 28():46-53. PubMed ID: 25000596 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Reliability of panoramic radiography in determination of neurosensory disturbances related to dental implant placement in posterior mandible. Kütük N, Gönen ZB, Yaşar MT, Demirbaş AE, Alkan A. Implant Dent; 2014 Dec 01; 23(6):648-52. PubMed ID: 25365650 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. How do dentists use CBCT in dental clinics? A Norwegian nationwide survey. Hol C, Hellén-Halme K, Torgersen G, Nilsson M, Møystad A. Acta Odontol Scand; 2015 Apr 01; 73(3):195-201. PubMed ID: 25415368 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]