356 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18199147)
1. Clinical subgingival calculus detection with a smart ultrasonic device: a pilot study.
Meissner G; Oehme B; Strackeljan J; Kocher T
J Clin Periodontol; 2008 Feb; 35(2):126-32. PubMed ID: 18199147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. In vitro calculus detection with a moved smart ultrasonic device.
Meissner G; Oehme B; Strackeljan J; Kocher T
J Clin Periodontol; 2006 Feb; 33(2):130-4. PubMed ID: 16441738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A new system to detect residual subgingival calculus: in vitro detection limits.
Meissner G; Oehme B; Strackeljan J; Kocher T
J Clin Periodontol; 2006 Mar; 33(3):195-9. PubMed ID: 16489945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Influence of handling-relevant factors on the behaviour of a novel calculus-detection device.
Meissner G; Oehme B; Strackeljan J; Kocher T
J Clin Periodontol; 2005 Mar; 32(3):323-8. PubMed ID: 15766378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Subgingival debridement with a teflon-coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments and assessment of substance removal on extracted teeth.
Rühling A; Bernhardt O; Kocher T
Quintessence Int; 2005 Jun; 36(6):446-52. PubMed ID: 15954250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. In vivo and in vitro effects of an Er:YAG laser, a GaAlAs diode laser, and scaling and root planing on periodontally diseased root surfaces: a comparative histologic study.
Schwarz F; Sculean A; Berakdar M; Szathmari L; Georg T; Becker J
Lasers Surg Med; 2003; 32(5):359-66. PubMed ID: 12766958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Efficiency of subgingival calculus removal with the Vector-system compared to ultrasonic scaling and hand instrumentation in vitro.
Braun A; Krause F; Frentzen M; Jepsen S
J Periodontal Res; 2005 Feb; 40(1):48-52. PubMed ID: 15613079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparison of root surface instrumentation using two piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers and a hand scaler in vivo.
Kawashima H; Sato S; Kishida M; Ito K
J Periodontal Res; 2007 Feb; 42(1):90-5. PubMed ID: 17214645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A method for the validation of a new calculus detection system.
Meissner G; Oehme B; Strackeljan J; Kuhr A; Kocher T
J Clin Periodontol; 2005 Jun; 32(6):659-64. PubMed ID: 15882227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparative study of manual and ultrasonic instrumentation of cementum surfaces: influence of lateral pressure.
Gagnot G; Mora F; Poblete MG; Vachey E; Michel JF; Cathelineau G
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2004 Apr; 24(2):137-45. PubMed ID: 15119884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Subgingival polishing with a teflon-coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth. (I) Residual deposits.
Kocher T; Langenbeck M; Rühling A; Plagmann HC
J Clin Periodontol; 2000 Apr; 27(4):243-9. PubMed ID: 10783837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. In vitro evaluation of Er:YAG laser scaling of subgingival calculus in comparison with ultrasonic scaling.
Aoki A; Miura M; Akiyama F; Nakagawa N; Tanaka J; Oda S; Watanabe H; Ishikawa I
J Periodontal Res; 2000 Oct; 35(5):266-77. PubMed ID: 11005154
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Influence of fluorescence-controlled Er:YAG laser radiation, the Vector system and hand instruments on periodontally diseased root surfaces in vivo.
Schwarz F; Bieling K; Venghaus S; Sculean A; Jepsen S; Becker J
J Clin Periodontol; 2006 Mar; 33(3):200-8. PubMed ID: 16489946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Pain during prophylaxis treatment elicited by two power-driven instruments.
Kocher T; Rodemerk B; Fanghänel J; Meissner G
J Clin Periodontol; 2005 May; 32(5):535-8. PubMed ID: 15842271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The use of a linear oscillating device in periodontal treatment: a review.
Guentsch A; Preshaw PM
J Clin Periodontol; 2008 Jun; 35(6):514-24. PubMed ID: 18410394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The effectiveness of a novel optical probe in subgingival calculus detection.
Kasaj A; Moschos I; Röhrig B; Willershausen B
Int J Dent Hyg; 2008 May; 6(2):143-7. PubMed ID: 18412728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A clinical and SEM evaluation of the efficiency of sofscale gel and hand scaling and hand scaling alone.
Thomas K; Vandana KL; Reddy VR
Indian J Dent Res; 2002; 13(3-4):173-82. PubMed ID: 12765098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Interrater agreement on subgingival calculus detection following scaling.
Pippin DJ; Feil P
J Dent Educ; 1992 May; 56(5):322-6. PubMed ID: 1629469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Efficiency of the Vector -system compared with conventional subgingival debridement in vitro and in vivo.
Braun A; Krause F; Hartschen V; Falk W; Jepsen S
J Clin Periodontol; 2006 Aug; 33(8):568-74. PubMed ID: 16899100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. In vitro and clinical evaluation of optical coherence tomography for the detection of subgingival calculus and root cementum.
Tsubokawa M; Aoki A; Kakizaki S; Taniguchi Y; Ejiri K; Mizutani K; Koshy G; Akizuki T; Oda S; Sumi Y; Izumi Y
J Oral Sci; 2018 Sep; 60(3):418-427. PubMed ID: 29794398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
