306 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20214429)
1. Improving osseointegration of dental implants.
Elias CN; Meirelles L
Expert Rev Med Devices; 2010 Mar; 7(2):241-56. PubMed ID: 20214429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Implant surfaces.
Puleo DA; Thomas MV
Dent Clin North Am; 2006 Jul; 50(3):323-38, v. PubMed ID: 16818018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Early loading of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sand-blasted and acid-etched surface: 6-month results of a prospective case series study in the posterior mandible focusing on peri-implant crestal bone changes and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values.
Bornstein MM; Hart CN; Halbritter SA; Morton D; Buser D
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2009 Dec; 11(4):338-47. PubMed ID: 19438966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Status of surface treatment in endosseous implant: a literary overview.
Gupta A; Dhanraj M; Sivagami G
Indian J Dent Res; 2010; 21(3):433-8. PubMed ID: 20930358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Innovations in dental implant design for current therapy.
Lesmes D; Laster Z
Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am; 2011 May; 23(2):193-200, v. PubMed ID: 21492795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Histological comparison of bone to implant contact in two types of dental implant surfaces: a single case study.
Shibli JA; Feres M; de Figueiredo LC; Iezzi G; Piattelli A
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2007 Mar; 8(3):29-36. PubMed ID: 17351679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Implant materials, designs, and surface topographies: their effect on osseointegration. A literature review.
Sykaras N; Iacopino AM; Marker VA; Triplett RG; Woody RD
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2000; 15(5):675-90. PubMed ID: 11055135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Implant microdesigns and their impact on osseointegration.
Aljateeli M; Wang HL
Implant Dent; 2013 Apr; 22(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 23364448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The Tapered Groovy implant optimizes implant success in suboptimal clinical conditions.
Hanao G
Dent Implantol Update; 2006 Jan; 17(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 16422445
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Twenty years of progress in implant prosthodontics.
Taylor TD; Agar JR
J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Jul; 88(1):89-95. PubMed ID: 12239483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Early loading after 21 days of healing of nonsubmerged titanium implants with a chemically modified sandblasted and acid-etched surface: two-year results of a prospective two-center study.
Morton D; Bornstein MM; Wittneben JG; Martin WC; Ruskin JD; Hart CN; Buser D
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2010 Mar; 12(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 19744195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Enhanced implant stability with a chemically modified SLA surface: a randomized pilot study.
Oates TW; Valderrama P; Bischof M; Nedir R; Jones A; Simpson J; Toutenburg H; Cochran DL
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2007; 22(5):755-60. PubMed ID: 17974109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Rehabilitation of edentulous mandibles by means of five TiUnite implants after one-stage surgery: a 1-year retrospective study of 90 patients.
Friberg B; Jemt T
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2008 Mar; 10(1):47-54. PubMed ID: 18254740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Biomechanical and histomorphometric comparison between zirconia implants with varying surface textures and a titanium implant in the maxilla of miniature pigs.
Gahlert M; Gudehus T; Eichhorn S; Steinhauser E; Kniha H; Erhardt W
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2007 Oct; 18(5):662-8. PubMed ID: 17608736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [The Léon [correction of Laurent] Guedj implant concept: simplification of the surgical phase in implantology].
Fabie L; Guedj L; Pichaud Ch; Fabie M
Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac; 2002 Nov; 103(5):275-80. PubMed ID: 12461462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The role of titanium implant surface modification with hydroxyapatite nanoparticles in progressive early bone-implant fixation in vivo.
Lin A; Wang CJ; Kelly J; Gubbi P; Nishimura I
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(5):808-16. PubMed ID: 19865620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. What physical and/or biochemical characteristics of roughened endosseous implant surfaces particularly enhance their bone-implant contact capability?
Cooper LF; Deporter D; Wennerberg A; Hämmerle C
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2005; 20(2):307-12. PubMed ID: 15839126
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Bone regeneration at implants with turned or rough surfaces in self-contained defects. An experimental study in the dog.
Botticelli D; Berglundh T; Persson LG; Lindhe J
J Clin Periodontol; 2005 May; 32(5):448-55. PubMed ID: 15842258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Bone healing at implants with a fluoride-modified surface: an experimental study in dogs.
Berglundh T; Abrahamsson I; Albouy JP; Lindhe J
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2007 Apr; 18(2):147-52. PubMed ID: 17269959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Stability of loaded and unloaded implants with different surfaces.
Nergiz I; Arpak N; Bostanci H; Scorziello TM; Schmage P
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(2):289-98. PubMed ID: 19492645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
