Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 220

1.

Bone density: comparative evaluation of Hounsfield units in multislice and cone-beam computed tomography.

Silva IM, Freitas DQ, Ambrosano GM, Bóscolo FN, Almeida SM.

Braz Oral Res. 2012 Nov-Dec;26(6):550-6.

2.

Reliability of voxel gray values in cone beam computed tomography for preoperative implant planning assessment.

Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D.

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):1438-42.

PMID:
23189294
3.

Analysis of intensity variability in multislice and cone beam computed tomography.

Nackaerts O, Maes F, Yan H, Couto Souza P, Pauwels R, Jacobs R.

Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Aug;22(8):873-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02076.x. Epub 2011 Jan 18.

PMID:
21244502
4.

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-Oct;26(5):1051-6.

PMID:
22010089
5.

Bone density assessments of dental implant sites: 2. Quantitative cone-beam computerized tomography.

Aranyarachkul P, Caruso J, Gantes B, Schulz E, Riggs M, Dus I, Yamada JM, Crigger M.

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 May-Jun;20(3):416-24.

PMID:
15973953
6.

Bone quality evaluation at dental implant site using multislice CT, micro-CT, and cone beam CT.

Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D.

Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(1):e1-7. doi: 10.1111/clr.12315. Epub 2013 Dec 11.

PMID:
24325572
7.

The reliability of cone-beam computed tomography to assess bone density at dental implant recipient sites: a histomorphometric analysis by micro-CT.

González-García R, Monje F.

Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Aug;24(8):871-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02390.x. Epub 2012 Jan 17.

PMID:
22250839
8.

A comparison of jaw dimensional and quality assessments of bone characteristics with cone-beam CT, spiral tomography, and multi-slice spiral CT.

Loubele M, Guerrero ME, Jacobs R, Suetens P, van Steenberghe D.

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007 May-Jun;22(3):446-54.

PMID:
17622012
9.

Comparison of cone-beam and conventional multislice computed tomography for image-guided dental implant planning.

Poeschl PW, Schmidt N, Guevara-Rojas G, Seemann R, Ewers R, Zipko HT, Schicho K.

Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Jan;17(1):317-24. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0704-6. Epub 2012 Mar 14.

PMID:
22411262
10.

Vertical bone measurements from cone beam computed tomography images using different software packages.

Vasconcelos TV, Neves FS, Moraes LA, Freitas DQ.

Braz Oral Res. 2015;29. pii: S1806-83242015000100236. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0035. Epub 2015 Feb 11.

11.

Assessments of jaw bone density at implant sites using 3D cone-beam computed tomography.

Hao Y, Zhao W, Wang Y, Yu J, Zou D.

Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014;18(9):1398-403.

12.

Assessment of bone segmentation quality of cone-beam CT versus multislice spiral CT: a pilot study.

Loubele M, Maes F, Schutyser F, Marchal G, Jacobs R, Suetens P.

Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006 Aug;102(2):225-34. Epub 2006 Apr 21.

PMID:
16876067
13.

Comparison between cone-beam and multislice computed tomography for identification of simulated bone lesions.

Gaia BF, Sales MA, Perrella A, Fenyo-Pereira M, Cavalcanti MG.

Braz Oral Res. 2011 Jul-Aug;25(4):362-8.

14.

Cone beam computed tomography and low-dose multislice computed tomography in orthodontics and dentistry: a comparative evaluation on image quality and radiation exposure.

Hofmann E, Schmid M, Lell M, Hirschfelder U.

J Orofac Orthop. 2014 Sep;75(5):384-98. doi: 10.1007/s00056-014-0232-x. Epub 2014 Aug 28.

PMID:
25158951
15.

Investigation of the usability of conebeam CT data sets for dose calculation.

Richter A, Hu Q, Steglich D, Baier K, Wilbert J, Guckenberger M, Flentje M.

Radiat Oncol. 2008 Dec 16;3:42. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-3-42.

16.

Evaluation of voxel values in mandibular cancellous bone: relationship between cone-beam computed tomography and multislice helical computed tomography.

Naitoh M, Hirukawa A, Katsumata A, Ariji E.

Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 May;20(5):503-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01672.x. Epub 2009 Feb 25.

PMID:
19250241
17.

Cone-beam computed tomography and microtomography for alveolar bone measurements.

Ferrare N, Leite AF, Caracas HC, de Azevedo RB, de Melo NS, de Souza Figueiredo PT.

Surg Radiol Anat. 2013 Aug;35(6):495-502. doi: 10.1007/s00276-013-1080-x. Epub 2013 Feb 12.

PMID:
23400642
18.

Morphometric analysis - Cone beam computed tomography to predict bone quality and quantity.

Hohlweg-Majert B, Metzger MC, Kummer T, Schulze D.

J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2011 Jul;39(5):330-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2010.10.002. Epub 2010 Oct 27.

PMID:
21030266
19.

Morphometric analysis of mandibular trabecular bone using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study.

Naitoh M, Aimiya H, Hirukawa A, Ariji E.

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Nov-Dec;25(6):1093-8.

PMID:
21197484
20.

Influence of cone beam CT scanning parameters on grey value measurements at an implant site.

Parsa A, Ibrahim N, Hassan B, Motroni A, van der Stelt P, Wismeijer D.

Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42(3):79884780. doi: 10.1259/dmfr/79884780. Epub 2012 Aug 29.

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk