Free Access
| Issue |
Radioprotection
Volume 54, Number 3, July-September 2019
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Page(s) | 175 - 179 | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2019023 | |
| Published online | 17 June 2019 | |
- Allan DN. 1999. “ Dental restoration review praised. ” Br. Dent. J. 187(12): 632. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Berger MJ, Hubbell JH, Seltzer SM, Chang J, Coursey JS, Sukumar R, Zucker DS, Olsen K. 2010. XCOM: Photon Cross Sections Database. [Google Scholar]
- Bertin EP. 1975. Principles and practice of X-Ray spectrometric analysis. New York: Plenum Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Carrabba M et al. 2017. “ Comparison of traditional and simplified methods for repairing CAD/CAM feldspathic ceramics. ” J. Adv. Prosthodont. 9(4): 257–264. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Davisson CM, Evans RD. 1952. “ Gamma-ray absorption coefficients. ” Rev. Modern Phys. 24(2): 79–107. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Eley BM. 1997. “ The future of dental amalgam: a review of the literature. Part 7: Possible alternative materials to amalgam for the restoration of posterior teeth. ” Br. Dent. J. 183(1): 11–14. [Google Scholar]
- Faulkner KD et al. 1999. “ Patient dosimetry measurement methods. ” Appl. Radiat. Isot. 50(1): 113–123. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Gavala S et al. 2009. “ Radiation dose reduction in direct digital panoramic radiography. ” Eur. J. Radiol. 71(1): 42–48. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- ICRP. 2007. “ ICRP Publication 105. Radiation protection in medicine. ” Ann. ICRP. 37(6): 1–63. [Google Scholar]
- Li G et al. 2018. “ Buccal mucosa cell damage in individuals following dental X-ray examinations. ” Sci. Rep. 8(1): 2509. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Liedke GS et al. 2014. “ Radiographic diagnosis of dental restoration misfit: A systematic review. ” J. Oral. Rehabil. 41(12): 957–967. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ludlow JB et al. 2008. “ Patient risk related to common dental radiographic examinations: The impact of 2007 International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations regarding dose calculation. ” J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 139(9): 1237–1243. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Mesbahi A et al. 2010. “ Estimation of organs doses and radiation-induced secondary cancer risk from scattered photons for conventional radiation therapy of nasopharynx: A Monte Carlo study. ” Jpn. J. Radiol. 28(5): 398–403. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Murty RC. 1965. “ Effective atomic numbers of heterogeneous materials. ” Nature 207: 398. [Google Scholar]
- NIST. 2018. “ How to run the xcom program.” Available from https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Xcom/Text/intro.html. [Google Scholar]
- Otto T. 2017. “ Up to 27-years clinical long-term results of chairside Cerec 1 CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. ” Int. J. Comput. Dent. 20(3): 315–329. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rehman JU et al. 2018. “ Dosimetric, radiobiological and secondary cancer risk evaluation in head-and-neck three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, and volumetric modulated arc therapy: A phantom study. ” J. Med. Phys. 43(2): 129–135. [Google Scholar]
- Reilly D, Nelson G. 1991. Gamma-ray interactions with matter. Passive nondestructive assay of nuclear materials (S. Kreiner, Ed.), pp. 27–42. Washington, DC: Los Alamos National Laboratory. [Google Scholar]
- Schibilla H, Moores BM. 1995. “ Diagnostic radiology better images – Lower dose compromise or correlation? A European strategy with historical overview. ” J. Belge Radiol. 78(6): 382–387. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wrzesien M, Olszewski J. 2017. “ Absorbed doses for patients undergoing panoramic radiography, cephalometric radiography and CBCT. ” Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 30(5): 705–713. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zenobio MA, da Silva TA. 2007. “ Absorbed doses on patients undergoing tomographic exams for pre-surgery planning of dental implants. ” Appl. Radiat. Isot. 65(6): 708–711. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.