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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12452353)

  • 1. Bone graft substitutes in modern orthopedics.
    Parikh SN
    Orthopedics; 2002 Nov; 25(11):1301-9; quiz 1310-1. PubMed ID: 12452353
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Bone graft substitutes: towards a more perfect union.
    Bauer TW; Togawa D
    Orthopedics; 2003 Sep; 26(9):925-6. PubMed ID: 14503749
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Properties of calcium phosphate ceramics in relation to their in vivo behavior.
    Blokhuis TJ; Termaat MF; den Boer FC; Patka P; Bakker FC; Haarman HJ
    J Trauma; 2000 Jan; 48(1):179-86. PubMed ID: 10647592
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Orthopaedic applications of bone graft & graft substitutes: a review.
    Nandi SK; Roy S; Mukherjee P; Kundu B; De DK; Basu D
    Indian J Med Res; 2010 Jul; 132():15-30. PubMed ID: 20693585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Molecular, Cellular and Pharmaceutical Aspects of Synthetic Hydroxyapatite Bone Substitutes for Oral and Maxillofacial Grafting.
    Gotz W; Papageorgiou SN
    Curr Pharm Biotechnol; 2017; 18(1):95-106. PubMed ID: 27915980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Bone grafting materials for dental applications: a practical guide.
    Gross JS
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 1997 Oct; 18(10):1013-8, 1020-2, 1024, passim; quiz. PubMed ID: 9533311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of different bone graft materials in peri-implant guided bone regeneration.
    Artas G; Gul M; Acikan I; Kirtay M; Bozoglan A; Simsek S; Yaman F; Dundar S
    Braz Oral Res; 2018 Jul; 32():e59. PubMed ID: 29995064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparative in vivo study of six hydroxyapatite-based bone graft substitutes.
    Habibovic P; Kruyt MC; Juhl MV; Clyens S; Martinetti R; Dolcini L; Theilgaard N; van Blitterswijk CA
    J Orthop Res; 2008 Oct; 26(10):1363-70. PubMed ID: 18404698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Histological evaluation of the effects of bioglass, hydroxyapatite, or demineralized freeze-dried bone, grafted alone or as composites, on the healing of tibial defects in rabbits.
    Kucukkolbasi H; Mutlu N; Isik K; Celik I; Oznurlu Y
    Saudi Med J; 2009 Mar; 30(3):329-33. PubMed ID: 19271058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of six bone-graft substitutes regarding to cell seeding efficiency, metabolism and growth behaviour of human mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) in vitro.
    Seebach C; Schultheiss J; Wilhelm K; Frank J; Henrich D
    Injury; 2010 Jul; 41(7):731-8. PubMed ID: 20233614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Bone transplantation and bone replacement materials].
    Patka P; Haarman HJ; Bakker FC
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1998 Apr; 142(16):893-6. PubMed ID: 9623184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. In vivo evaluation of resorbable bone graft substitutes in mandibular sockets of the beagle.
    Shih TC; Chang WJ; Yang JC; Feng SW; Lin CT; Teng NC
    J Biomed Mater Res A; 2012 Oct; 100(10):2726-31. PubMed ID: 22623380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The clinical use of bone graft substitutes in orthopedic surgery in Germany-A 10-years survey from 2008 to 2018 of 1,090,167 surgical interventions.
    Rupp M; Klute L; Baertl S; Walter N; Mannala GK; Frank L; Pfeifer C; Alt V; Kerschbaum M
    J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater; 2022 Feb; 110(2):350-357. PubMed ID: 34291874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Synthetic bone graft substitutes.
    Moore WR; Graves SE; Bain GI
    ANZ J Surg; 2001 Jun; 71(6):354-61. PubMed ID: 11409021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Differential effects of bone graft substitutes on regeneration of bone marrow.
    Schwartz Z; Doukarsky-Marx T; Nasatzky E; Goultschin J; Ranly DM; Greenspan DC; Sela J; Boyan BD
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2008 Dec; 19(12):1233-45. PubMed ID: 19040438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Osseointegration aspects of placed implant in bone reconstruction with newly developed block-type interconnected porous calcium hydroxyapatite.
    Doi K; Kubo T; Makihara Y; Oue H; Morita K; Oki Y; Kajihara S; Tsuga K
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2016; 24(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 27556202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Bone graft materials and synthetic substitutes.
    Beaman FD; Bancroft LW; Peterson JJ; Kransdorf MJ
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2006 May; 44(3):451-61. PubMed ID: 16644361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Enhancement of the in vivo osteogenic potential of marrow/hydroxyapatite composites by bovine bone morphogenetic protein.
    Noshi T; Yoshikawa T; Ikeuchi M; Dohi Y; Ohgushi H; Horiuchi K; Sugimura M; Ichijima K; Yonemasu K
    J Biomed Mater Res; 2000 Dec; 52(4):621-30. PubMed ID: 11033544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Bone regeneration graft materials.
    Hoexter DL
    J Oral Implantol; 2002; 28(6):290-4. PubMed ID: 12498538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Major bone defect treatment with an osteoconductive bone substitute.
    Paderni S; Terzi S; Amendola L
    Chir Organi Mov; 2009 Sep; 93(2):89-96. PubMed ID: 19711008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.