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

358 related items for PubMed ID: 9442600

  • 41. Psychophysical properties of a new F-speed intraoral film.
    Mastoris M, Yoshiura K, Welander U, Tsiklakis K, Papadakis E, Li G.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 May; 33(3):158-63. PubMed ID: 15371315
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 42. Imaging of root canal fillings: a comparison of subjective image quality between limited cone-beam CT, storage phosphor and film radiography.
    Soğur E, Baksi BG, Gröndahl HG.
    Int Endod J; 2007 Mar; 40(3):179-85. PubMed ID: 17305694
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 43. Image-receptor performance: a comparison of Trophy RVG UI sensor and Kodak Ektaspeed Plus film.
    Ludlow J, Mol A.
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2001 Jan; 91(1):109-19. PubMed ID: 11174581
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 44. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 45.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 46.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 47.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 48.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 49. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 50.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 51. [Digital thoracic radiography--a comparison of digital and analog imaging techniques].
    Busch HP.
    Bildgebung; 1991 May; 58 Suppl 1():9-12. PubMed ID: 1799858
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 52.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 53. Dose reduction of two digital sensor systems measuring file lengths.
    Velders XL, Sanderink GC, van der Stelt PF.
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1996 May; 81(5):607-12. PubMed ID: 8734712
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 54. A comparison of digital and film radiography in Dutch dental practices assessed by questionnaire.
    Berkhout WE, Sanderink GC, Van der Stelt PF.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2002 Mar; 31(2):93-9. PubMed ID: 12076062
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 55.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 56. Digital image processing in cephalometric analysis.
    Jäger A, Döler W, Schormann T.
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 1989 Mar; 99(1):19-23. PubMed ID: 2913641
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 57. A sensitometric comparison of four dental X-ray films and their diagnostic accuracy.
    Svenson B, Welander U, Shi XQ, Stamatakis H, Tronje G.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 Jul; 26(4):230-5. PubMed ID: 9442614
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 58.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 59.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 60. Diagnostic accuracy of in vitro panoramic radiographs depending on the exposure.
    Kaeppler G, Dietz K, Reinert S.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Feb; 36(2):68-74. PubMed ID: 17403882
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 18.