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 *

87 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17506385)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Evaluation of a new furcation stent as a fixed reference point for class II furcation measurements.
    Laxman VK; Khatri M; Devaraj CG; Reddy K; Reddy R
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2009 Mar; 10(2):18-25. PubMed ID: 19279968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Clinical attachment loss produced by curettes and periodontal files.
    Alves R; Machion L; Casati MZ; Nociti Junior FH; Sallum EA; Sallum WA
    J Int Acad Periodontol; 2004 Jul; 6(3):76-80. PubMed ID: 15368873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Important differences in clinical data from third, second, and first generation periodontal probes.
    Breen HJ; Rogers PA; Lawless HC; Austin JS; Johnson NW
    J Periodontol; 1997 Apr; 68(4):335-45. PubMed ID: 9150038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Reproducibility of periodontal probing using a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe.
    Wang SF; Leknes KN; Zimmerman GJ; Sigurdsson TJ; Wikesjö UM; Selvig KA
    J Periodontol; 1995 Jan; 66(1):38-46. PubMed ID: 7891248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Option-4 algorithm for automated disc probe: reduction in the variance of site-specific relative attachment level measurements.
    Breen HJ; Rogers PA; Slaney RE; Lawless HC; Austin JS; Gillett IR; Johnson NW
    J Periodontol; 1997 May; 68(5):456-66. PubMed ID: 9182741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Clinical attachment loss produced by curettes and ultrasonic scalers.
    Alves RV; Machion L; Casati MZ; Nociti FH; Sallum EA; Sallum AW
    J Clin Periodontol; 2005 Jul; 32(7):691-4. PubMed ID: 15966872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Option-4 algorithm for third generation disc probe: agreement of selected site-specific relative attachment level measurements and detection of longitudinal site-specific attachment level change.
    Breen HJ; Rogers PA; Slaney RE; Gillett IR; Johnson NW
    J Periodontol; 1999 Feb; 70(2):159-70. PubMed ID: 10102553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.