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 *

535 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19040443)

  • 1. Implant-abutment interface design affects fatigue and fracture strength of implants.
    Steinebrunner L; Wolfart S; Ludwig K; Kern M
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2008 Dec; 19(12):1276-84. PubMed ID: 19040443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Fracture strength and failure mode of five different single-tooth implant-abutment combinations.
    Strub JR; Gerds T
    Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(2):167-71. PubMed ID: 12737249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Load fatigue performance of four implant-abutment interface designs: effect of torque level and implant system.
    Quek HC; Tan KB; Nicholls JI
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(2):253-62. PubMed ID: 18548921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant-abutment interface: joint opening in wide-diameter versus standard-diameter hex-type implants.
    Hoyer SA; Stanford CM; Buranadham S; Fridrich T; Wagner J; Gratton D
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Jun; 85(6):599-607. PubMed ID: 11404760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Fatigue resistance of two implant/abutment joint designs.
    Khraisat A; Stegaroiu R; Nomura S; Miyakawa O
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Dec; 88(6):604-10. PubMed ID: 12488853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Load fatigue performance of implant-ceramic abutment combinations.
    Nguyen HQ; Tan KB; Nicholls JI
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(4):636-46. PubMed ID: 19885403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An in vitro load evaluation of a conical implant system with 2 abutment designs and 3 different retaining-screw alloys.
    Erneklint C; Odman P; Ortengren U; Karlsson S
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2006; 21(5):733-7. PubMed ID: 17066634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Fracture resistance and failure location of zirconium and metallic implant abutments.
    Aramouni P; Zebouni E; Tashkandi E; Dib S; Salameh Z; Almas K
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 Nov; 9(7):41-8. PubMed ID: 18997915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Micromotion and dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant-abutment interface.
    Gratton DG; Aquilino SA; Stanford CM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Jan; 85(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 11174678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Bending moments of zirconia and titanium abutments with internal and external implant-abutment connections after aging and chewing simulation.
    Truninger TC; Stawarczyk B; Leutert CR; Sailer TR; Hämmerle CH; Sailer I
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2012 Jan; 23(1):12-8. PubMed ID: 21443610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Strength and mode of failure of single implant all-ceramic abutment restorations under static load.
    Tripodakis AP; Strub JR; Kappert HF; Witkowski S
    Int J Prosthodont; 1995; 8(3):265-72. PubMed ID: 10348596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of the compressive strength of 3 different implant design systems.
    Pedroza JE; Torrealba Y; Elias A; Psoter W
    J Oral Implantol; 2007; 33(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 17410905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. In vitro study of the influence of the type of connection on the fracture load of zirconia abutments with internal and external implant-abutment connections.
    Sailer I; Sailer T; Stawarczyk B; Jung RE; Hämmerle CH
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(5):850-8. PubMed ID: 19865625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns.
    Kim Y; Yamashita J; Shotwell JL; Chong KH; Wang HL
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Jun; 95(6):450-5. PubMed ID: 16765158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Load fatigue performance of conical implant-abutment connections.
    Seetoh YL; Tan KB; Chua EK; Quek HC; Nicholls JI
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(4):797-806. PubMed ID: 21841990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of repeated torque/mechanical loading cycles on two different abutment types in implants with internal tapered connections: an in vitro study.
    Ricciardi Coppedê A; de Mattos Mda G; Rodrigues RC; Ribeiro RF
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2009 Jun; 20(6):624-32. PubMed ID: 19281502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Examination of the implant-abutment interface after fatigue testing.
    Cibirka RM; Nelson SK; Lang BR; Rueggeberg FA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Mar; 85(3):268-75. PubMed ID: 11264934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The influence of veneering porcelain thickness of all-ceramic and metal ceramic crowns on failure resistance after cyclic loading.
    Shirakura A; Lee H; Geminiani A; Ercoli C; Feng C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Feb; 101(2):119-27. PubMed ID: 19167536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Fracture resistance of single-tooth implant-supported all-ceramic restorations: an in vitro study.
    Att W; Kurun S; Gerds T; Strub JR
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Feb; 95(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 16473084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Bending moments of zirconia and titanium implant abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns after aging.
    Mühlemann S; Truninger TC; Stawarczyk B; Hämmerle CH; Sailer I
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2014 Jan; 25(1):74-81. PubMed ID: 23735182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 27.