218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15367182)
1. 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]
2. Comparison of two pressure-sensitive periodontal probes and a manual periodontal probe in shallow and deep pockets.
Rams TE; Slots J
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 1993 Dec; 13(6):520-9. PubMed ID: 8181912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Reproducibility of clinical attachment level and probing depth of a manual probe and a computerized electronic probe.
Alves Rde V; Machion L; Andia DC; Casati MZ; Sallum AW; Sallum EA
J Int Acad Periodontol; 2005 Jan; 7(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 15736893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Improved diagnostics: clinical evaluation of a color-coded, polymeric periodontal probe.
Kazmierczak MD; Ciancio SG; Mather M; Dangler LV; Troullos ES
Clin Prev Dent; 1992; 14(4):24-8. PubMed ID: 1521399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Intra- and inter-examiner reproducibility of manual probing depth.
Andrade R; Espinoza M; Gómez EM; Espinoza JR; Cruz E
Braz Oral Res; 2012; 26(1):57-63. PubMed ID: 22344339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Millimeter marks and probe tip diameter standardisation from commercially available periodontal probes. A comparative study.
Neto JB; Filho GR; Tramontina VA; Sallum EA; Nociti FH; Sallum AW
J Int Acad Periodontol; 2001 Jul; 3(3):57-60. PubMed ID: 12666942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of two automated periodontal probes and two probes with a conventional readout in periodontal maintenance patients.
Barendregt DS; Van der Velden U; Timmerman MF; van der Weijden GA
J Clin Periodontol; 2006 Apr; 33(4):276-82. PubMed ID: 16553636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A thin or thick probe handle: does it make a difference?
van Weringh M; Barendregt DS; Rosema NA; Timmerman MF; van der Weijden GA
Int J Dent Hyg; 2006 Aug; 4(3):140-4. PubMed ID: 16958742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of measurement variability using a standard and constant force periodontal probe.
Osborn J; Stoltenberg J; Huso B; Aeppli D; Pihlstrom B
J Periodontol; 1990 Aug; 61(8):497-503. PubMed ID: 2391627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of measurement variability in subjects with moderate periodontitis using a conventional and constant force periodontal probe.
Osborn JB; Stoltenberg JL; Huso BA; Aeppli DM; Pihlstrom BL
J Periodontol; 1992 Apr; 63(4):283-9. PubMed ID: 1573541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. In vitro accuracy and reproducibility of automated and conventional periodontal probes.
Samuel ED; Griffiths GS; Petrie A
J Clin Periodontol; 1997 May; 24(5):340-5. PubMed ID: 9178114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Accuracy of probing attachment levels using a CEJ probe versus traditional probes.
Karpinia K; Magnusson I; Gibbs C; Yang MC
J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Mar; 31(3):173-6. PubMed ID: 15016020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinical attachment level measurements with and without the use of a stent by a computerized electronic probe.
Machion L; Andia DC; Nociti Júnior FH; Casati MZ; Sallum AW; Sallum EA
J Int Acad Periodontol; 2007 Apr; 9(2):58-62. PubMed ID: 17506385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reproducibility of probing depth measurement by an experimental periodontal probe incorporating optical fiber sensor.
Ishihata K; Wakabayashi N; Wadachi J; Akizuki T; Izumi Y; Takakuda K; Igarashi Y
J Periodontol; 2012 Feb; 83(2):222-7. PubMed ID: 21574830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of a new periodontal probe tip design. A clinical and in vitro study.
Vartoukian SR; Palmer RM; Wilson RF
J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Oct; 31(10):918-25. PubMed ID: 15367198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Sources of error for periodontal probing measurements.
Grossi SG; Dunford RG; Ho A; Koch G; Machtei EE; Genco RJ
J Periodontal Res; 1996 Jul; 31(5):330-6. PubMed ID: 8858537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Detection of the cemento-enamel junction with three different probes: an "in vitro" model.
Barendregt DS; van der Velden U; Timmerman MF; Bulthuis HM; van der Weijden F
J Clin Periodontol; 2009 Mar; 36(3):212-8. PubMed ID: 19196382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Probe penetration in periodontal and peri-implant tissues. An experimental study in the beagle dog.
Abrahamsson I; Soldini C
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2006 Dec; 17(6):601-5. PubMed ID: 17092216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Measurement of attachment level in clinical trials: probing methods.
Pihlstrom BL
J Periodontol; 1992 Dec; 63(12 Suppl):1072-7. PubMed ID: 1479528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
