107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10899340)
1. Surface roughness parameters as predictors of anchorage strength in bone: a critical analysis.
Hansson S
J Biomech; 2000 Oct; 33(10):1297-303. PubMed ID: 10899340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The relation between surface roughness and interfacial shear strength for bone-anchored implants. A mathematical model.
Hansson S; Norton M
J Biomech; 1999 Aug; 32(8):829-36. PubMed ID: 10433425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Experimental investigation of the effect of surface roughness on bone-cement-implant shear bond strength.
van Tol AF; Tibballs JE; Roar Gjerdet N; Ellison P
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2013 Dec; 28():254-62. PubMed ID: 24004958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Mixed-mode failure strength of implant-cement interface specimens with varying surface roughness.
Zelle J; Janssen D; Peeters S; Brouwer C; Verdonschot N
J Biomech; 2011 Feb; 44(4):780-3. PubMed ID: 21074772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A 1-year follow-up of implants of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone.
Wennerberg A; Ektessabi A; Albrektsson T; Johansson C; Andersson B
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1997; 12(4):486-94. PubMed ID: 9274077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Biomechanical evaluation of the interfacial strength of a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched titanium surface.
Ferguson SJ; Broggini N; Wieland M; de Wild M; Rupp F; Geis-Gerstorfer J; Cochran DL; Buser D
J Biomed Mater Res A; 2006 Aug; 78(2):291-7. PubMed ID: 16637025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Interface mechanics of porous titanium implants.
Clemow AJ; Weinstein AM; Klawitter JJ; Koeneman J; Anderson J
J Biomed Mater Res; 1981 Jan; 15(1):73-82. PubMed ID: 7348706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Implant surface roughness and bone healing: a systematic review.
Shalabi MM; Gortemaker A; Van't Hof MA; Jansen JA; Creugers NH
J Dent Res; 2006 Jun; 85(6):496-500. PubMed ID: 16723643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of a predictive model for implant surface topography effects on early osseointegration in the rat tibia model.
Abron A; Hopfensperger M; Thompson J; Cooper LF
J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Jan; 85(1):40-6. PubMed ID: 11174677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Long-Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients' Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Doornewaard R; Christiaens V; De Bruyn H; Jacobsson M; Cosyn J; Vervaeke S; Jacquet W
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2017 Apr; 19(2):372-399. PubMed ID: 27860171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Global biomechanical model for dental implants.
Hansson S; Löberg J; Mattisson I; Ahlberg E
J Biomech; 2011 Apr; 44(6):1059-65. PubMed ID: 21354573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [The role of surface roughness in promoting osteointegration].
Nasatzky E; Gultchin J; Schwartz Z
Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993); 2003 Jul; 20(3):8-19, 98. PubMed ID: 14515625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An evaluation of variables influencing implant fixation by direct bone apposition.
Thomas KA; Cook SD
J Biomed Mater Res; 1985 Oct; 19(8):875-901. PubMed ID: 3880349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Gap healing enhanced by hydroxyapatite coating in dogs.
Søballe K; Hansen ES; Brockstedt-Rasmussen H; Hjortdal VE; Juhl GI; Pedersen CM; Hvid I; Bünger C
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1991 Nov; (272):300-7. PubMed ID: 1657476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Interfacial shear strength of bioactive-coated carbon fiber reinforced polyetheretherketone after in vivo implantation.
Nakahara I; Takao M; Goto T; Ohtsuki C; Hibino S; Sugano N
J Orthop Res; 2012 Oct; 30(10):1618-25. PubMed ID: 22467537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The influence of bone damage on press-fit mechanics.
Bishop NE; Höhn JC; Rothstock S; Damm NB; Morlock MM
J Biomech; 2014 Apr; 47(6):1472-8. PubMed ID: 24503049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effect of limited lateral resolution in the measurement of implant surface roughness: a computer simulation.
Hansson S; Hansson KN
J Biomed Mater Res A; 2005 Nov; 75(2):472-7. PubMed ID: 16106434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of surface roughness of hydroxyapatite-coated titanium on the bone-implant interface shear strength.
Hayashi K; Inadome T; Tsumura H; Nakashima Y; Sugioka Y
Biomaterials; 1994 Nov; 15(14):1187-91. PubMed ID: 7534485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An improved mechanical testing method to assess bone-implant anchorage.
Bell S; Ajami E; Davies JE
J Vis Exp; 2014 Feb; (84):e51221. PubMed ID: 24561765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of bone-implant interface shear strength of hydroxyapatite-coated and alumina-coated metal implants.
Inadome T; Hayashi K; Nakashima Y; Tsumura H; Sugioka Y
J Biomed Mater Res; 1995 Jan; 29(1):19-24. PubMed ID: 7713954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
