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 *

223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1573541)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. A comparison of manual and controlled-force attachment-level measurements.
    Reddy MS; Palcanis KG; Geurs NC
    J Clin Periodontol; 1997 Dec; 24(12):920-6. PubMed ID: 9442430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Inter- and intra-examiner variability using standard and constant force periodontal probes.
    Walsh TF; Saxby MS
    J Clin Periodontol; 1989 Mar; 16(3):140-3. PubMed ID: 2723096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Intra - and inter-examiner reproducibility in constant force probing.
    Wang SF; Leknes KN; Zimmerman GJ; Sigurdsson TJ; Wikesjö UM; Selvig KA
    J Clin Periodontol; 1995 Dec; 22(12):918-22. PubMed ID: 8613559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Site-specific attachment level change detected by physical probing in untreated chronic adult periodontitis: review of studies 1982-1997.
    Breen HJ; Johnson NW; Rogers PA
    J Periodontol; 1999 Mar; 70(3):312-28. PubMed ID: 10225549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The rate of periodontal attachment loss in subjects with established periodontitis.
    Machtei EE; Norderyd J; Koch G; Dunford R; Grossi S; Genco RJ
    J Periodontol; 1993 Aug; 64(8):713-8. PubMed ID: 8410609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Constant force probing with and without a stent in untreated periodontal disease: the clinical reproducibility problem and possible sources of error.
    Watts T
    J Clin Periodontol; 1987 Aug; 14(7):407-11. PubMed ID: 3476518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of manual and automated probing in an untreated periodontitis population.
    Oringer RJ; Fiorellini JP; Koch GG; Sharp TJ; Nevins ML; Davis GH; Howell TH
    J Periodontol; 1997 Dec; 68(12):1156-62. PubMed ID: 9444589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Measurement of clinical attachment levels using a constant-force periodontal probe modified to detect the cemento-enamel junction.
    Preshaw PM; Kupp L; Hefti AF; Mariotti A
    J Clin Periodontol; 1999 Jul; 26(7):434-40. PubMed ID: 10412847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Clinical evaluation of a constant force electronic probe.
    Quirynen M; Callens A; van Steenberghe D; Nys M
    J Periodontol; 1993 Jan; 64(1):35-9. PubMed ID: 8426288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Reproducibility of probing depth measurement using a constant-force electronic probe: analysis of inter- and intraexaminer variability.
    Araujo MW; Hovey KM; Benedek JR; Grossi SG; Dorn J; Wactawski-Wende J; Genco RJ; Trevisan M
    J Periodontol; 2003 Dec; 74(12):1736-40. PubMed ID: 14974813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.