186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1855793)
1. 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]
2. A new periodontal probe with automated cemento-enamel junction detection.
Jeffcoat MK; Jeffcoat RL; Jens SC; Captain K
J Clin Periodontol; 1986 Apr; 13(4):276-80. PubMed ID: 3458724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. A comparison between measurements made with a conventional periodontal pocket probe, an electronic pressure probe and measurements made at surgery.
Galgut PN; Waite IM
Int Dent J; 1990 Dec; 40(6):333-8. PubMed ID: 2276830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Probe penetration in periodontal and peri-implant tissues. An experimental study in the beagle dog.
Abrahamsson I; Soldini C
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2006 Dec; 17(6):601-5. PubMed ID: 17092216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Reliability of attachment level measurements using the cementoenamel junction and a plastic stent.
Clark DC; Chin Quee T; Bergeron MJ; Chan EC; Lautar-Lemay C; de Gruchy K
J Periodontol; 1987 Feb; 58(2):115-8. PubMed ID: 3469400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Validity of clinical assessments related to the cemento-enamel junction.
Hug HU; van 't Hof MA; Spanauf AJ; Renggli HH
J Dent Res; 1983 Jul; 62(7):825-9. PubMed ID: 6575024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Controlled force measurements of gingival attachment level made with the Toronto automated probe using electronic guidance.
Karim M; Birek P; McCulloch CA
J Clin Periodontol; 1990 Sep; 17(8):594-600. PubMed ID: 2212091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
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. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
