117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11359282)
1. Similarity of stress distribution in bone for various implant surface roughness heights of similar form.
Skalak R; Zhao Y
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2000; 2(4):225-30. PubMed ID: 11359282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Interaction of force-fitting and surface roughness of implants.
Skalak R; Zhao Y
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2000; 2(4):219-24. PubMed ID: 11359281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The effect of implant thread design on stress distribution in anisotropic bone with different osseointegration conditions: a finite element analysis.
Mosavar A; Ziaei A; Kadkhodaei M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(6):1317-26. PubMed ID: 26478976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Dental implant thread pitch and its influence on the osseointegration process: an in vivo comparison study.
Orsini E; Giavaresi G; Trirè A; Ottani V; Salgarello S
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(2):383-92. PubMed ID: 22442779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The effects of superficial roughness and design on the primary stability of dental implants.
Dos Santos MV; Elias CN; Cavalcanti Lima JH
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2011 Sep; 13(3):215-23. PubMed ID: 19744197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of stress pattern generated through various thread designs of dental implants loaded in a condition of immediately after placement and on osseointegration--an FEA study.
Chowdhary R; Halldin A; Jimbo R; Wennerberg A
Implant Dent; 2013 Feb; 22(1):91-6. PubMed ID: 23287982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Bone tissue response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and coarse particles of aluminum oxide.
Wennerberg A; Albrektsson T; Andersson B
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1996; 11(1):38-45. PubMed ID: 8820121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Biomechanical Behavior of the Dental Implant Macrodesign.
Lima de Andrade C; Carvalho MA; Bordin D; da Silva WJ; Del Bel Cury AA; Sotto-Maior BS
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2017; 32(2):264-270. PubMed ID: 28291847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Influence of implant surface topography on bone-regenerative potential and mechanical retention in the human maxilla and mandible.
Wei N; Bin S; Jing Z; Wei S; Yingqiong Z
Am J Dent; 2014 Jun; 27(3):171-6. PubMed ID: 25208367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Anchorage of titanium implants with different surface characteristics: an experimental study in rabbits.
Gotfredsen K; Berglundh T; Lindhe J
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2000; 2(3):120-8. PubMed ID: 11359256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Biomechanical investigation of thread designs and interface conditions of zirconia and titanium dental implants with bone: three-dimensional numeric analysis.
Fuh LJ; Hsu JT; Huang HL; Chen MY; Shen YW
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(2):e64-71. PubMed ID: 23527370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Implant surface material, design, and osseointegration.
Ogle OE
Dent Clin North Am; 2015 Apr; 59(2):505-20. PubMed ID: 25835806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Does titanium surface treatment influence the bone-implant interface? SEM and histomorphometry in a 6-month sheep study.
Huré G; Donath K; Lesourd M; Chappard D; Baslé MF
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1996; 11(4):506-11. PubMed ID: 8803346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Influence of surgical technique and surface roughness on the primary stability of an implant in artificial bone with different cortical thickness: a laboratory study.
Tabassum A; Meijer GJ; Wolke JG; Jansen JA
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2010 Feb; 21(2):213-20. PubMed ID: 20070754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. High bone-implant contact achieved by photofunctionalization to reduce periimplant stress: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Ohyama T; Uchida T; Shibuya N; Nakabayashi S; Ishigami T; Ogawa T
Implant Dent; 2013 Feb; 22(1):102-8. PubMed ID: 23314350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [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]
19. Effects of implant thread geometry on percentage of osseointegration and resistance to reverse torque in the tibia of rabbits.
Steigenga J; Al-Shammari K; Misch C; Nociti FH; Wang HL
J Periodontol; 2004 Sep; 75(9):1233-41. PubMed ID: 15515339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. In vivo bone response and interfacial properties of titanium-alloy implant with different designs in rabbit model with time.
Chakraborty A; Kundu B; Basu D; Pal TK; Nandi SK
Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(2):277-84. PubMed ID: 21891900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
