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 *

220 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20690952)

  • 1. Radiographical evaluation of the gap at the implant-abutment interface.
    Papavassiliou H; Kourtis S; Katerelou J; Chronopoulos V
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2010 Aug; 22(4):235-50. PubMed ID: 20690952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Tube angulation effect on radiographic analysis of the implant-abutment interface.
    Begoña Ormaechea M; Millstein P; Hirayama H
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1999; 14(1):77-85. PubMed ID: 10074756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A radiographic analysis of implant component misfit.
    Sharkey S; Kelly A; Houston F; O'Sullivan M; Quinn F; O'Connell B
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(4):807-15. PubMed ID: 21841991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. COMMENTARY. Radiographical evaluation of the gap at the implant-abutment interface.
    Tarnow D
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2010 Aug; 22(4):251. PubMed ID: 20690953
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Radiographic verification of implant abutment seating.
    Cameron SM; Joyce A; Brousseau JS; Parker MH
    J Prosthet Dent; 1998 Mar; 79(3):298-303. PubMed ID: 9553883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Impact of abutment rotation and angulation on marginal fit: theoretical considerations.
    Semper W; Kraft S; Mehrhof J; Nelson K
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(4):752-8. PubMed ID: 20657870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cross-sectional analysis of the implant-abutment interface.
    Coelho AL; Suzuki M; Dibart S; DA Silva N; Coelho PG
    J Oral Rehabil; 2007 Jul; 34(7):508-16. PubMed ID: 17559619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Evaluation of the precision of fit between the Procera custom abutment and various implant systems.
    Lang LA; Sierraalta M; Hoffensperger M; Wang RF
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2003; 18(5):652-8. PubMed ID: 14579952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.
    Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Micromovement Evaluation of Original and Compatible Abutments at the Implant-abutment Interface.
    Berberi A; Maroun D; Kanj W; Amine EZ; Philippe A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2016 Nov; 17(11):907-913. PubMed ID: 27965499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-abutment connections.
    Piattelli A; Scarano A; Paolantonio M; Assenza B; Leghissa GC; Di Bonaventura G; Catamo G; Piccolomini R
    J Periodontol; 2001 Sep; 72(9):1146-50. PubMed ID: 11577944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Leakage of saliva through the implant-abutment interface: in vitro evaluation of three different implant connections under unloaded and loaded conditions.
    do Nascimento C; Miani PK; Pedrazzi V; Gonçalves RB; Ribeiro RF; Faria AC; Macedo AP; de Albuquerque RF
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(3):551-60. PubMed ID: 22616048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Marginal accuracy of three implant-ceramic abutment configurations.
    Baldassarri M; Hjerppe J; Romeo D; Fickl S; Thompson VP; Stappert CF
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(3):537-43. PubMed ID: 22616046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Measurement of the rotational misfit and implant-abutment gap of all-ceramic abutments.
    Garine WN; Funkenbusch PD; Ercoli C; Wodenscheck J; Murphy WC
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2007; 22(6):928-38. PubMed ID: 18271374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. In vitro evaluation of reverse torque value of abutment screw and marginal opening in a screw- and cement-retained implant fixed partial denture design.
    Kim SG; Park JU; Jeong JH; Bae C; Bae TS; Chee W
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(6):1061-7. PubMed ID: 20162110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The peri-implant sulcus compared with internal implant and suprastructure components: a microbiological analysis.
    Cosyn J; Van Aelst L; Collaert B; Persson GR; De Bruyn H
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2011 Dec; 13(4):286-95. PubMed ID: 19673920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of castable and premachined metal base abutment/implant interfaces before and after cyclical load.
    De Mori R; Ribeiro CF; da Silva-Concílio LR; Claro Neves AC
    Implant Dent; 2014 Apr; 23(2):212-7. PubMed ID: 24637531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.