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.
228 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18983317)
61. The mucosal barrier at implant abutments of different materials. Welander M; Abrahamsson I; Berglundh T Clin Oral Implants Res; 2008 Jul; 19(7):635-41. PubMed ID: 18492075 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
62. A long-term retrospective study of two different implant surfaces placed after reconstruction of the severely resorbed maxilla using Le Fort I osteotomy and interpositional bone grafting. Marchetti C; Pieri F; Corinaldesi G; Degidi M Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(5):911-8. PubMed ID: 19014162 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
63. Benefits of an implant platform modification technique to reduce crestal bone resorption. Vela-Nebot X; Rodríguez-Ciurana X; Rodado-Alonso C; Segalà-Torres M Implant Dent; 2006 Sep; 15(3):313-20. PubMed ID: 16966906 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
64. Biomechanical evaluation of subcrestal placement of dental implants: in vitro and numerical analyses. Chu CM; Hsu JT; Fuh LJ; Huang HL J Periodontol; 2011 Feb; 82(2):302-10. PubMed ID: 20809863 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
65. Evaluation on the movement of endosseous titanium implants under continuous orthodontic forces: an experimental study in the dog. Hsieh YD; Su CM; Yang YH; Fu E; Chen HL; Kung S Clin Oral Implants Res; 2008 Jun; 19(6):618-23. PubMed ID: 18422988 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
66. Marginal bone stability using 3 different flap approaches for alveolar split expansion for dental implants: a 1-year clinical study. Jensen OT; Cullum DR; Baer D J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Sep; 67(9):1921-30. PubMed ID: 19686930 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
67. Healing at fluoride-modified implants placed in wide marginal defects: an experimental study in dogs. Abrahamsson I; Albouy JP; Berglundh T Clin Oral Implants Res; 2008 Feb; 19(2):153-9. PubMed ID: 18039334 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
68. Morphogenesis of the peri-implant mucosa: a comparison between flap and flapless procedures in the canine mandible. You TM; Choi BH; Li J; Xuan F; Jeong SM; Jang SO Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Jan; 107(1):66-70. PubMed ID: 18755613 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
69. Ridge alterations following immediate implant placement in the dog: flap versus flapless surgery. Blanco J; Nuñez V; Aracil L; Muñoz F; Ramos I J Clin Periodontol; 2008 Jul; 35(7):640-8. PubMed ID: 18422696 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
70. Vertical ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration (GBR) in three clinical scenarios prior to implant placement: a retrospective study of 35 patients 12 to 72 months after loading. Urban IA; Jovanovic SA; Lozada JL Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(3):502-10. PubMed ID: 19587874 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
71. Immediate functional loading of TiOblast dental implants in full-arch edentulous maxillae: a 3-year prospective study. Collaert B; De Bruyn H Clin Oral Implants Res; 2008 Dec; 19(12):1254-60. PubMed ID: 19040440 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
72. A classification system to measure the implant-abutment microgap. Kano SC; Binon PP; Curtis DA Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2007; 22(6):879-85. PubMed ID: 18271368 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
73. Immediate implants at fresh extraction sockets: bone healing in four different implant systems. de Sanctis M; Vignoletti F; Discepoli N; Zucchelli G; Sanz M J Clin Periodontol; 2009 Aug; 36(8):705-11. PubMed ID: 19549213 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
74. Immediate implant placement in fresh extraction sockets: a clinical report. Kahnberg KE Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(2):282-8. PubMed ID: 19492644 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
75. Histomorphometric evaluation of alumina-blasted/acid-etched and thin ion beam-deposited bioceramic surfaces: an experimental study in dogs. Suzuki M; Guimaraes MV; Marin C; Granato R; Gil JN; Coelho PG J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Mar; 67(3):602-7. PubMed ID: 19231787 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
76. Comparative histological and histomorphometrical evaluation of marginal bone resorption around external hexagon and Morse cone implants: an experimental study in dogs. Castro DS; Araujo MA; Benfatti CA; Araujo Cdos R; Piattelli A; Perrotti V; Iezzi G Implant Dent; 2014 Jun; 23(3):270-6. PubMed ID: 24819808 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
77. Does Subcrestal Position Affect Insertion Torque of Different Implant Designs at Different Bone Densities? An In Vitro Model Study. Ferraro-Bezerra M; Rodrigues Carvalho FS; Nogueira Cunto GM; Duarte Carneiro BG; de Barros Silva PG Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2021; 36(3):460-467. PubMed ID: 34115059 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
78. Effect of different implant placement depths on crestal bone levels and soft tissue behavior: A 5-year randomized clinical trial. de Siqueira RAC; Savaget Gonçalves Junior R; Dos Santos PGF; de Mattias Sartori IA; Wang HL; Fontão FNGK Clin Oral Implants Res; 2020 Mar; 31(3):282-293. PubMed ID: 31886592 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
79. Retrospective study of 68 implants placed in the pterygomaxillary region using drills and osteotomes. Peñarrocha M; Carrillo C; Boronat A; Peñarrocha M Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(4):720-6. PubMed ID: 19885414 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]