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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10703653)

  • 1. The accuracy of the Vivacare true pressure-sensitive periodontal probe system in terms of probing force.
    Bergenholtz A; al-Harbi N; al-Hummayani FM; Anton P; al-Kahtani S
    J Clin Periodontol; 2000 Feb; 27(2):93-8. PubMed ID: 10703653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Periodontal probe precision using 4 different periodontal probes.
    Mayfield L; Bratthall G; Attström R
    J Clin Periodontol; 1996 Feb; 23(2):76-82. PubMed ID: 8849842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Correlation between electronic and visual readings of pocket depths with a newly developed constant force probe.
    Magnusson I; Fuller WW; Heins PJ; Rau CF; Gibbs CH; Marks RG; Clark WB
    J Clin Periodontol; 1988 Mar; 15(3):180-4. PubMed ID: 3162464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Intra - and inter-examiner reproducibility in constant force probing.
    Wang SF; Leknes KN; Zimmerman GJ; Sigurdsson TJ; Wikesjö UM; Selvig KA
    J Clin Periodontol; 1995 Dec; 22(12):918-22. PubMed ID: 8613559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Clinical evaluation of tine shape of 3 periodontal probes using 2 probing forces.
    Barendregt DS; Van der Velden U; Reiker J; Loos BG
    J Clin Periodontol; 1996 Apr; 23(4):397-402. PubMed ID: 8739173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Periodontal probing: probe tip diameter.
    Garnick JJ; Silverstein L
    J Periodontol; 2000 Jan; 71(1):96-103. PubMed ID: 10695944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Description and clinical evaluation of a new computerized periodontal probe--the Florida probe.
    Gibbs CH; Hirschfeld JW; Lee JG; Low SB; Magnusson I; Thousand RR; Yerneni P; Clark WB
    J Clin Periodontol; 1988 Feb; 15(2):137-44. PubMed ID: 3162246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparative reproducibility of proximal probing depth using electronic pressure-controlled and hand probing.
    Mullally BH; Linden GJ
    J Clin Periodontol; 1994 Apr; 21(4):284-8. PubMed ID: 8195446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Controlled force measurements of gingival attachment level made with the Toronto automated probe using electronic guidance.
    Karim M; Birek P; McCulloch CA
    J Clin Periodontol; 1990 Sep; 17(8):594-600. PubMed ID: 2212091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Comparative probing with an electronic and a manual periodontal probe].
    Becherer CF; Rateitschak KH; Hefti AF
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 1993; 103(6):715-21. PubMed ID: 8322056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of manual and pressure-controlled periodontal probing.
    Kalkwarf KL; Kaldahl WB; Patil KD
    J Periodontol; 1986 Aug; 57(8):467-71. PubMed ID: 3528451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An assessment of the validity of a constant force electronic probe in measuring probing depths.
    Hull PS; Clerehugh V; Ghassemi-Aval A
    J Periodontol; 1995 Oct; 66(10):848-51. PubMed ID: 8537866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical evaluation of electronic and manual constant force probes.
    Khocht A; Chang KM
    J Periodontol; 1998 Jan; 69(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 9527557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Inter- and intra-examiner variability using standard and constant force periodontal probes.
    Walsh TF; Saxby MS
    J Clin Periodontol; 1989 Mar; 16(3):140-3. PubMed ID: 2723096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accuracy and reproducibility of probe forces during simulated periodontal pocket depth measurements.
    Al Shayeb KN; Turner W; Gillam DG
    Saudi Dent J; 2014 Apr; 26(2):50-5. PubMed ID: 25408596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of a conventional probe with electronic and manual pressure-regulated probes.
    Perry DA; Taggart EJ; Leung A; Newburn E
    J Periodontol; 1994 Oct; 65(10):908-13. PubMed ID: 7823271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison between measurements made with a conventional periodontal pocket probe, an electronic pressure probe and measurements made at surgery.
    Galgut PN; Waite IM
    Int Dent J; 1990 Dec; 40(6):333-8. PubMed ID: 2276830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reproducibility of an electronic probe in relative attachment level measurements.
    Yang MC; Marks RG; Magnusson I; Clouser B; Clark WB
    J Clin Periodontol; 1992 Sep; 19(8):541-8. PubMed ID: 1447378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Measuring clinical attachment: reproducibility of relative measurements with an electronic probe.
    Clark WB; Yang MC; Magnusson I
    J Periodontol; 1992 Oct; 63(10):831-8. PubMed ID: 1403590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Accuracy and reproducibility of two manual periodontal probes. An in vitro study.
    Buduneli E; Aksoy O; Köse T; Atilla G
    J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Oct; 31(10):815-9. PubMed ID: 15367182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.