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 *

86 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14346657)

  • 41. Comparative frequency of use of the electric toothbrush and hand toothbrush.
    Muhler JC
    J Periodontol; 1969 May; 40(5):268-70. PubMed ID: 5255340
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. [The relation between toothbrushing pressure and plaque removal of different kinds of toothbrushes using the scrubbing method (1). Effect of the toothbrush tip and diameter of the toothbrush nylon bristles].
    Tsuchisawa K; Watanabe T; Watanabe I; Yamamoto K; Arai T; Nakamura J
    Nihon Shishubyo Gakkai Kaishi; 1986 Dec; 28(4):1120-30. PubMed ID: 3470406
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. A Review of Laboratory Methods to Determine Toothbrush Safety and Efficacy.
    Saxer UP; Yankell SL
    J Clin Dent; 1997; 8(4):114-9. PubMed ID: 26630721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Impalement oral injury: Ultrasonic scalpel is the best tool to cut off a toothbrush.
    Yamaguchi Y; Miyashita T; Toki K; Takaki S; Goto T
    Technol Health Care; 2015; 23(5):685-90. PubMed ID: 26410130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Relative extrinsic stain removal effectiveness of a new battery-powered toothbrush and a flat trim manual toothbrush.
    Hunt SA; Bartizek RD
    Am J Dent; 2004 Jan; 17 Spec No():13A-17A. PubMed ID: 14998049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. A comparative study between the double-headed toothbrush and the single headed toothbrush in plaque removal efficiency.
    Almajed I
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1994; 19(1):19-21. PubMed ID: 7865417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. A new in vitro method for testing the interproximal cleaning potential of toothbrushing.
    Bruun C; Ekstrand KR; Andreasen KB
    J Clin Dent; 1998; 9(1):11-5. PubMed ID: 9835827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Toothbrush age, wear, and plaque control.
    Hegde PP; Ashok KB; Ankola AV
    Indian J Dent Res; 2005; 16(2):61-4. PubMed ID: 16372795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Effects of the sonicare toothbrush for specific indications.
    Kugel G; Boghosian AA
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2002 Jul; 23(7 Suppl 1):11-4. PubMed ID: 12789979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. In vitro assessment of the plaque-removing ability of hydrodynamic shear forces produced beyond the bristles by 2 electric toothbrushes.
    Hope CK; Petrie A; Wilson M
    J Periodontol; 2003 Jul; 74(7):1017-22. PubMed ID: 12931764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Laboratory evaluation of plaque removal at interproximal sites by a specially engineered powered toothbrush with unique sensing and control technologies.
    Kemp JH; Barnes CM; Spirgel CM; Shi X; Yankell SL
    J Clin Dent; 2012; 23 Spec No A():A17-20. PubMed ID: 23448084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Development of the Evolve toothbrush: laboratory evaluations of gingival margin cleaning and subgingival access.
    Yankell SL; Shi X; Emling RC; Spirgel CM; Scheier PA
    J Clin Dent; 2007; 18(3):91-4. PubMed ID: 17913004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. [Acceptance of the meridol toothbrush by dental hygienists. A questionnaire study].
    Saxer UP; Nittner T; Toutenburg H
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 2007; 117(10):1050-8. PubMed ID: 17987879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Resistance to abrasion of extrinsic porcelain esthetic characterization techniques.
    Chi WJ; Browning W; Looney S; Mackert JR; Windhorn RJ; Rueggeberg F
    US Army Med Dep J; 2017; (2-17):71-79. PubMed ID: 28853123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Plaque removal efficacy of a newly developed powered toothbrush in the primary dentition of pre-school children.
    Borutta A
    J Clin Dent; 1997; 8(6):151-5. PubMed ID: 9586530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. A comparison of effectiveness in interproximal plaque removal of an electric toothbrush and a conventional hand toothbrush.
    Powers GK; Tussing GJ; Bradley RE
    Periodontics; 1967; 5(1):37-41. PubMed ID: 5225738
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. The effect of an oscillating/rotating electric toothbrush and a sonic toothbrush on removal of stain from enamel surfaces.
    Schemehorn BR; Keil JC
    J Clin Dent; 1995; 6(4):194-7. PubMed ID: 8624231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Comparative efficacy of a new battery-powered toothbrush and an electric toothbrush on plaque removal.
    Barnes V; Battista GW; Petrone D; Petrone ME; Chaknis P; DeVizio W; Volpe AR
    Compend Contin Educ Dent Suppl; 2000; (31):S30-3; quiz S35. PubMed ID: 11908373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. [Gingival abrasion and plaque removal with manual vs. electric toothbrushes].
    Niemi ML; Ainamo J; Etemadzadeh H
    Oralprophylaxe; 1988 Mar; 10(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 3273776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Surface properties of universal and flowable nanohybrid composites after simulated tooth brushing.
    Jin J; Takahashi R; Hickel R; Kunzelmann KH
    Am J Dent; 2014 Jun; 27(3):149-54. PubMed ID: 25208363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.