218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15367182)
41. Histological location of a standardized periodontal probe in man.
Aguero A; Garnick JJ; Keagle J; Steflik DE; Thompson WO
J Periodontol; 1995 Mar; 66(3):184-90. PubMed ID: 7776162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. [Comparative probing with an electronic and a manual periodontal probe].
Becherer CF; Rateitschak KH; Hefti AF
Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 1993; 103(6):715-21. PubMed ID: 8322056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Measuring clinical attachment: reproducibility of relative measurements with an electronic probe.
Clark WB; Yang MC; Magnusson I
J Periodontol; 1992 Oct; 63(10):831-8. PubMed ID: 1403590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. A clinical study of an electronic constant force periodontal probe.
Tupta-Veselicky L; Famili P; Ceravolo FJ; Zullo T
J Periodontol; 1994 Jun; 65(6):616-22. PubMed ID: 8083795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Evaluation of speed, repeatability, and reproducibility of digital radiography with manual versus computer-assisted cephalometric analyses.
Uysal T; Baysal A; Yagci A
Eur J Orthod; 2009 Oct; 31(5):523-8. PubMed ID: 19443692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Comparison of the Hydrabrush powered toothbrush with two commercially-available powered toothbrushes.
Patters MR; Bland PS; Shiloah J; Blankenship JA; Scarbecz M
J Int Acad Periodontol; 2005 Jul; 7(3):80-9. PubMed ID: 16022024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Periodontal probing: probe tip diameter.
Garnick JJ; Silverstein L
J Periodontol; 2000 Jan; 71(1):96-103. PubMed ID: 10695944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Relationship between position of probe tip and periodontal tissues after periodontal surgery in dogs.
Hatakeyama Y; Uzel MI; Santana RB; Ruben MP
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2005 Jun; 25(3):247-55. PubMed ID: 16001737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. A periodontal probe with automated cemento--enamel junction detection-design and clinical trials.
Jeffcoat MK; Jeffcoat RL; Captain K
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1991 Apr; 38(4):330-3. PubMed ID: 1855793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. In-vitro accuracy and reproducibility evaluation of probing depth measurements of selected periodontal probes.
Al Shayeb KN; Turner W; Gillam DG
Saudi Dent J; 2014 Jan; 26(1):19-24. PubMed ID: 24526824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. An assessment of the validity of a constant force electronic probe in measuring probing depths.
Hull PS; Clerehugh V; Ghassemi-Aval A
J Periodontol; 1995 Oct; 66(10):848-51. PubMed ID: 8537866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Reproducibility of attachment level recordings using an electronic and a conventional probe.
Villata L; Baelum V
J Periodontol; 1996 Dec; 67(12):1292-300. PubMed ID: 8997676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Periodontal probing: a review.
Al Shayeb KN; Turner W; Gillam DG
Prim Dent J; 2014 Aug; 3(3):25-9. PubMed ID: 25198634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Comparison of manual and pressure-controlled periodontal probing.
Kalkwarf KL; Kaldahl WB; Patil KD
J Periodontol; 1986 Aug; 57(8):467-71. PubMed ID: 3528451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Comparison of probes for microbial contamination following use in periodontal pockets of various depths.
Holt LA; Williams KB; Cobb CM; Keselyak NT; Jamison CL; Brand VS
J Periodontol; 2004 Mar; 75(3):353-9. PubMed ID: 15088872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Level of patient comfort and measurement reproducibility of three different probes: A cross-sectional study.
Flores-Rodrigo D; Meza-Mauricio J; Retamal-Valdes B; Mayta-Tovalino F; Mendoza-Azpur G
Int J Dent Hyg; 2022 May; 20(2):301-307. PubMed ID: 34390316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Reproducibility of peri-implant probing using a force-controlled probe.
Eickholz P; Grotkamp FL; Steveling H; Mühling J; Staehle HJ
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2001 Apr; 12(2):153-8. PubMed ID: 11251665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Reproducibility of attachment level measurements with two models of the Florida Probe.
Marks RG; Low SB; Taylor M; Baggs R; Magnusson I; Clark WB
J Clin Periodontol; 1991 Nov; 18(10):780-4. PubMed ID: 1753003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Influence of examiner differences on KIG-classification when assessing malocclusions.
Gesch D; Kirbschus A; Schröder W; Bernhardt O; Proff P; Bayerlein T; Gedrange T; Kocher T
J Orofac Orthop; 2006 Mar; 67(2):81-91. PubMed ID: 16570130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Instrument Selection and Application Used to Probe Dental Implants.
Cha J; Wadhwani C; Wang M; Hokett SD; Katancik J
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(1):115–123. PubMed ID: 30521649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
