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

156 related items for PubMed ID: 6821592

  • 1. Clinical comparison of high-speed rare-earth screen and par-speed screen for diagnostic efficacy and radiation dosage.
    Robinson T, Becker JA, Olson AP.
    Radiology; 1982 Oct; 145(1):214-6. PubMed ID: 6821592
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Rare earth screens for panoramic radiography.
    Hurlburt CE, Coggins LJ.
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1984 Apr; 57(4):451-4. PubMed ID: 6584845
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. A comparative evaluation of rare-earth screen-film systems. System speed, contrast, sensitometry, RMS noise, square-wave response function, and contrast-dose-detail analysis.
    Fearon T, Vucich J, Hoe J, McSweeney WJ, Potter BM.
    Invest Radiol; 1986 Aug; 21(8):654-62. PubMed ID: 3744739
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Evaluation of rare earth intensifying screens in cephalometric radiography.
    Stathopoulos V, Poulton DR.
    Angle Orthod; 1990 Aug; 60(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 2180348
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Rare-earth and calcium tungstate intensifying screens, a comparative study of relative speed, radiation doses and resolving power.
    de Carvalho A, Jørgensen J.
    Rofo; 1978 Mar; 128(3):358-63. PubMed ID: 147838
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 11. Comparison of x-radiation doses between conventional and rare earth panoramic radiographic techniques.
    Skoczylas LJ, Preece JW, Langlais RP, McDavid WD, Waggener RG.
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Dec; 68(6):776-81. PubMed ID: 2594329
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 13. Image quality and patient dose for different screen-film combinations.
    Guibelalde E, Fernández JM, Vañó E, Llorca A, Ruiz MJ.
    Br J Radiol; 1994 Feb; 67(794):166-73. PubMed ID: 8130979
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Ultra-low-dose routine pediatric radiography utilizing a rare-earth filter.
    Wesenberg RL, Amundson GM, Mueller DL, Coupland SG.
    Can Assoc Radiol J; 1987 Sep; 38(3):158-64. PubMed ID: 2958463
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. A clinical comparison of image quality and patient exposure reduction in panoramic radiography with heavy metal filtration.
    Kapa SF, Tyndall DA.
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Jun; 67(6):750-9. PubMed ID: 2740096
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Exposure reduction and image quality for pantomographic radiography.
    Tyndall DA, Bedsole SM.
    Radiol Technol; 1987 Jun; 59(1):51-3. PubMed ID: 3659339
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. The application of fast screen-film systems to excretory urography.
    Stables DP, Rossi RP, Caruthers SB, Anderson N.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1977 Apr; 128(4):617-9. PubMed ID: 403791
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.