114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1894745)
1. Marking width, calibration from tip and tine diameter of periodontal probes.
Van der Zee E; Davies EH; Newman HN
J Clin Periodontol; 1991 Aug; 18(7):516-20. PubMed ID: 1894745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Millimeter marks and probe tip diameter standardisation from commercially available periodontal probes. A comparative study.
Neto JB; Filho GR; Tramontina VA; Sallum EA; Nociti FH; Sallum AW
J Int Acad Periodontol; 2001 Jul; 3(3):57-60. PubMed ID: 12666942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Probe tine diameter and probing depth.
Atassi F; Newman HN; Bulman JS
J Clin Periodontol; 1992 May; 19(5):301-4. PubMed ID: 1517473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical evaluation of tine shape of 3 periodontal probes using 2 probing forces.
Barendregt DS; Van der Velden U; Reiker J; Loos BG
J Clin Periodontol; 1996 Apr; 23(4):397-402. PubMed ID: 8739173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Probe penetration in relation to the connective tissue attachment level: influence of tine shape and probing force.
Bulthuis HM; Barendregt DS; Timmerman MF; Loos BG; van der Velden U
J Clin Periodontol; 1998 May; 25(5):417-23. PubMed ID: 9650880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Periodontal probing: a review.
Al Shayeb KN; Turner W; Gillam DG
Prim Dent J; 2014 Aug; 3(3):25-9. PubMed ID: 25198634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The accuracy of the Vivacare true pressure-sensitive periodontal probe system in terms of probing force.
Bergenholtz A; al-Harbi N; al-Hummayani FM; Anton P; al-Kahtani S
J Clin Periodontol; 2000 Feb; 27(2):93-8. PubMed ID: 10703653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. In vitro accuracy and reproducibility of automated and conventional periodontal probes.
Samuel ED; Griffiths GS; Petrie A
J Clin Periodontol; 1997 May; 24(5):340-5. PubMed ID: 9178114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. [Comparative probing with an electronic and a manual periodontal probe].
Becherer CF; Rateitschak KH; Hefti AF
Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 1993; 103(6):715-21. PubMed ID: 8322056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Validity of a hinged constant force probe and a similar, immobilised probe in untreated periodontal disease.
Simons P; Watts T
J Clin Periodontol; 1987 Nov; 14(10):581-7. PubMed ID: 3480294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of a conventional probe with electronic and manual pressure-regulated probes.
Perry DA; Taggart EJ; Leung A; Newburn E
J Periodontol; 1994 Oct; 65(10):908-13. PubMed ID: 7823271
[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. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
