Subtraction radiography of interradicular bone lesions

References

• Bender I B, Seltzer S. Roentgenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone. I. J Am Dent Assoc 1961; 62: 152–60
   Google Scholar
• Bender I B, Seltzer S. Roentgenographic and direct observation of experimental lesions in bone. II. J Am Dent Assoc 1961; 62: 708–16
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramadan A B, Mitchell D F. A roentgenographic study of experimental bone destruction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1962; 15: 934–42
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pads V, Trott J R. A radiological study of experimentally produced lesions in bone. Dent Practitioner 1966; 16: 254–8
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz S F, Foster J K. Roentgenographic interpretation of experimentally produced bony lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 606–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van der Stelt P F. Periapical bone lesions [thesis]. Free University, Amsterdam 1979
   Google Scholar
• Duinkerke A SH, Van de Poel A CM, De Th B oo, Doesburg W H. Variations in the interpretation of periapical radiolucencies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1975; 40: 414–22
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kullendorff B, Gröndahl K, Rohlin M, Henrikson C-O. Subtraction radiography for the diagnosis of periapical bone lesions. Endod Dent Traumatol 1988; 4: 253–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tyndall D A, Kapa S F, Bagneli C P. Digital subtraction radiography for detecting cortical and concellous bone changes in the periapical region. J Endodont 1990; 16: 173–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moystad A, Svannaes D B, Larheim T A. Personal computer equipment for dental digital subtraction radiography vs industrial computer equipment and conventional radiography. Scand J Dent Res 1991, In press
   Google Scholar
• Swets J A. ROC analysis applied to the evaluation of medical imaging technique. Invest Radiol 1979; 14: 109–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swets J A, Pickett R M. Evaluation of diagnostic systems. Methods from signal detection theory. Academic Press, New York 1982
   Google Scholar
• Gröndahl K, Kullendorff B, Strid K-G, Grtjndahl H-G, Henrikson C-O. Detectability of artificial marginal bone lesions as a function of lesion depth. A comparison between subtraction radiography and conventional radiographic technique. J Clin Periodontol 1988; 15: 152–62
   Google Scholar
• Farman A G. Endodontic cortical bony myth [letter]. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1991; 20: 179
   Google Scholar
• Omnell K-Å. Quantitative roentgenologic studies on changes in mineral content of bone in vivo [thesis]. Acta Radiol 1957, Suppl 148
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ruttimann U E, Webber R L, Schmidt E. A robust digital method for film contrast correction in subtraction radiography. J Periodont Res 1986; 21: 486–95
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vos M H, Janssen P TM, Van Aken J, Heethaalr R M. Quantitative measurement of periodontal bone changes by digital subtraction. J Periodont Res 1986; 21: 583–91
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Henrikson C-O. Iodine-125 as a radiation source for odontologic roentgenology (thesis]. Acta Radiol 1967, Suppl 269
   Google Scholar
• Gratt B M, White S C, Lucatorto F M., Samll J H, Kaffe I. A clinical comparison of xeroradiography and conventional film for the interpretation of periapical structures. J Endodont 1986; 12: 346–51
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gröndahl K, Gröndahl H-G, Wennstrom J, Heijl L. Examiner agreement in estimating changes in periodontal bone from conventional and subtraction radiographs. J Clin Periodontol 1987; 14: 74–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rethman M, Ruttiman U E, O'Neal R. Diagnosis of bone lesions by subtraction radiography. J Periodontol 1985; 56: 324–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaffe I, Gratt B M. Variation in the radiographic interpretation of the periapical dental region. J Endodont 1988; 14: 330–5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bender I B. Factors influencing the radiographic appearance of bony lesions. J Endodont 1982; 8: 161–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Stelt P F. Experimental produced lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985; 59: 306–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gröndahl K, Gröndahl H G, Webber R L. Inlluence of variations in projection geometry on the detectability of periodontal bone lesions. J Clin Periodontol 1984; 11: 411–20
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jeffcoat M K, Reddy M S, Webber R L, Williams R C, Ruttiman U E. Extraoral control of geometry for digital subtraction radiography. J Periodont Res 1987; 22: 396–402
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Proestakis G, Söderholm G, Bratthall G. Gingivectomy versus flap surgery: the effect of the treatment of infrabony defects. A clinical and radio-graphic study. J Clin Periodontol 1992, In press
   Google Scholar
• Janssen P TM. An investigation on clinical, radiological and biochemical methods for assessing periodontitis activity [thesis]. University of Utrecht, Utrecht 1987
   Google Scholar
• Webber R L, Ruttiman U E, Groenhuis R AJ. Computer correction of projective distortions in dental radiographs. J Dent Res 1984; 63: 1032–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wenzel A. Effect of manual compared with reference point superimposition on image quality in digital subtraction radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1989; 18: 145–50
   PubMedGoogle Scholar