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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15536659)

  • 21. The effect of concentration of tackifying agent on adhesive and skin-protective properties of ceramide 2-containing hydrocolloid dressings.
    Kohta M; Iwasaki T
    J Wound Care; 2015 Jan; 24(1):41-8. PubMed ID: 25543822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Adhesive backing foil interactions affecting the elasticity, adhesion strength of laminates, and how to interpret these properties of branded transdermal patches.
    Fauth C; Wiedersberg S; Neubert RH; Dittgen M
    Drug Dev Ind Pharm; 2002 Nov; 28(10):1251-9. PubMed ID: 12476871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Plasticizers in the manufacture of novel skin-bioadhesive patches.
    Gal A; Nussinovitch A
    Int J Pharm; 2009 Mar; 370(1-2):103-9. PubMed ID: 19073242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Skin changes induced by a zinc oxide dressing compared with a hydrocolloid dressing in healthy individuals.
    Nielsen LF; Blume N; Romme T; Samuelsen P; Everland H; Ifversen P; Karlsmark T
    Skin Res Technol; 2005 May; 11(2):140-51. PubMed ID: 15807813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of multi-adhesive layering on retention of extraoral maxillofacial silicone prostheses in vivo.
    Kiat-Amnuay S; Gettleman L; Goldsmith LJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2004 Sep; 92(3):294-8. PubMed ID: 15343167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Skin tapes and tissue adhesive vs. either method alone for laceration repair in a porcine model.
    Brown JL; Jehle D; Mayrose J; Schwartz L; Pugh J; O'Brien C
    Am J Emerg Med; 2021 Jul; 45():317-323. PubMed ID: 33059984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Evaluation of substrates for 90 degrees peel adhesion--a collaborative study. II. Transdermal drug delivery systems.
    Wokovich AM; Brown SA; Shen M; Doub WH; Cai B; Sadrieh N; Chen ML; Machado S; Buhse LF
    J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater; 2009 Jan; 88(1):61-5. PubMed ID: 18546200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. [Factors of influence on quality evaluation of adhesive property on cataplasma].
    Kong HY; Zhou H; Zhong HG; Wang DL; Wang X
    Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi; 2004 Oct; 29(10):947-50. PubMed ID: 15631078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A new methodology to measure strength of adherence of the fetal membrane components, amnion and the choriodecidua.
    Kumar D; Novince R; Strohl A; Mercer BM; Mansour JM; Moore RM; Moore JJ
    Placenta; 2009 Jun; 30(6):560-3. PubMed ID: 19410292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Dressing spray enhances the adhesive strength of surgical dressing tapes.
    Sarifakioglu E; Sarifakioglu N
    Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2006; 72(5):353-6. PubMed ID: 17050929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Bond strength of double-sided adhesive tapes used for facial prostheses.
    Polyzois GL
    Spec Care Dentist; 1994; 14(1):26-9. PubMed ID: 8042138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Novel instrumentation to determine peel force in vivo and preliminary studies with adhesive skin barriers.
    Krueger EM; Cullum ME; Nichols TR; Taylor MG; Sexton WL; Murahata RI
    Skin Res Technol; 2013 Nov; 19(4):398-404. PubMed ID: 23527472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effect of adhesive retention on maxillofacial prostheses. Part I: skin dressings and solvent removers.
    Kiat-amnuay S; Gettleman L; Khan Z; Goldsmith LJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):335-40. PubMed ID: 11005907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effect of adhesive retention of maxillofacial prostheses. Part 2: Time and reapplication effects.
    Kiat-Amnuay S; Gettleman L; Khan Z; Goldsmith LJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 May; 85(5):438-41. PubMed ID: 11357068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Failure and fatigue characteristics of adhesive athletic tape.
    Bragg RW; Macmahon JM; Overom EK; Yerby SA; Matheson GO; Carter DR; Andriacchi TP
    Med Sci Sports Exerc; 2002 Mar; 34(3):403-10. PubMed ID: 11880802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Self-strengthening tape junctions inspired by recluse spider webs.
    Skopic BH; Koebley SR; Schniepp HC
    Mater Horiz; 2022 Oct; 9(10):2581-2591. PubMed ID: 35904268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Rate-Dependent Pattern Evolution in Peeling Adhesive Tape Driven by Cohesive Failure.
    Sun Y; Chen R; Wang W; Zhang J; Qiu W; Liu X; Yu S; Li E; He L; Ni Y
    Langmuir; 2022 Oct; 38(42):12785-12794. PubMed ID: 36228190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Dynamics of stick-slip in peeling of an adhesive tape.
    De R; Maybhate A; Ananthakrishna G
    Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys; 2004 Oct; 70(4 Pt 2):046223. PubMed ID: 15600511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The effect of thermocycling on peel strength of six soft lining materials.
    Sertgöz A; Kulak Y; Gedik H; Taskonak B
    J Oral Rehabil; 2002 Jun; 29(6):583-7. PubMed ID: 12071928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Adhesive retention of silicone and chlorinated polyethylene for maxillofacial prostheses.
    Kiat-Amnuay S; Waters PJ; Roberts D; Gettleman L
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Jun; 99(6):483-8. PubMed ID: 18514671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.