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 *

372 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20922077)

  • 1. Effect of retraction materials on gingival health: A histopathological study.
    Phatale S; Marawar PP; Byakod G; Lagdive SB; Kalburge JV
    J Indian Soc Periodontol; 2010 Jan; 14(1):35-9. PubMed ID: 20922077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Efficacy of Different Gingival Displacement Materials in the Management of Gingival Sulcus Width: A Comparative Study.
    Rathod A; Jacob SS; MAlqahtani A; Valsan I; Majeed R; Premnath A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2021 Jun; 22(6):703-706. PubMed ID: 34393130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Gingival Retraction Using Polyvinyl Siloxane Foam Retraction System, Vinyl Polysiloxane Paste Retraction System, and Copper Wire Reinforced Retraction Cord in Endodontically Treated Teeth: An
    Mehta S; Virani H; Memon S; Nirmal N
    Contemp Clin Dent; 2019; 10(3):428-432. PubMed ID: 32308315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparative clinical efficacy evaluation of three gingival displacement systems.
    Shrivastava KJ; Bhoyar A; Agarwal S; Shrivastava S; Parlani S; Murthy V
    J Nat Sci Biol Med; 2015 Aug; 6(Suppl 1):S53-7. PubMed ID: 26604620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparative evaluation of the effect of impregnated retraction cord versus laser on gingival attachment level and pain perception following retraction for subgingival margins - A prospective, split-mouth, controlled, clinical study.
    Diwan V; Chauhan MR; Tembhurne J; Gangurde A; Wani H; Danane S
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2024 Apr; 24(2):136-143. PubMed ID: 38650338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of pressure generated by cordless gingival displacement materials.
    Bennani V; Inger M; Aarts JM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Aug; 112(2):163-7. PubMed ID: 24529659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the use of displacement cords and aluminum chloride paste.
    Bennani V; Aarts JM; Brunton P
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2020 Jun; 32(4):410-415. PubMed ID: 32442353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of Gingival Retraction Materials Using a New Gingival Sulcus Model.
    Dederichs M; Fahmy MD; Kuepper H; Guentsch A
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Aug; 28(7):784-789. PubMed ID: 31206914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparative Evaluation of the Amount of Gingival Displacement Using Three Recent Gingival Retraction Systems -
    Qureshi SM; Anasane NS; Kakade D
    Contemp Clin Dent; 2020; 11(1):28-33. PubMed ID: 33110305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Influence of Hemostatic Agents and Cordless Gingival Retraction Materials on Smear Layer: An Ex vivo Scanning Electron Microscope Analysis.
    Sahu SK; Nagda SJ
    Int J Appl Basic Med Res; 2021; 11(3):143-147. PubMed ID: 34458115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparative evaluation of three noninvasive gingival displacement systems: An
    Thimmappa M; Bhatia M; Somani P; Kumar DRV
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2018; 18(2):122-130. PubMed ID: 29692565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of efficacy of different gingival displacement materials on gingival sulcus width.
    Prasanna GS; Reddy K; Kumar RK; Shivaprakash S
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2013 Mar; 14(2):217-21. PubMed ID: 23811648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical evaluation of three new gingival retraction systems: a research report.
    Gupta A; Prithviraj DR; Gupta D; Shruti DP
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2013 Mar; 13(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 24431705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical evaluation of different gingival retraction cords.
    Kumbuloglu O; User A; Toksavul S; Boyacioglu H
    Quintessence Int; 2007 Feb; 38(2):e92-8. PubMed ID: 17510720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. New Zealand dentists' use of gingival retraction techniques for fixed prosthodontics and implants.
    Al-Ani A; Bennani V; Chandler NP; Lyons KM; Thomson WM
    N Z Dent J; 2010 Sep; 106(3):92-6. PubMed ID: 20882737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Estimation of cytokine levels in gingival crevicular fluid following the use of different gingival retraction systems in patients requiring fixed partial dentures - An original research.
    Mathew L; Mathew A; Saranya SK; Mohan AS
    J Oral Biol Craniofac Res; 2022; 12(5):709-712. PubMed ID: 36092456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparative evaluation of three gingival displacement systems: an in-vivo study.
    Aldhuwayhi S
    Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci; 2023 Sep; 27(17):8019-8025. PubMed ID: 37750631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Correlation of pressure and displacement during gingival displacement: An in vitro study.
    Bennani V; Aarts JM; Schumayer D
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Mar; 115(3):296-300. PubMed ID: 26548889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Effect of self-made colloid paste on gingival retraction in dogs].
    Li N; Liu WC; Zhang Y; Han DW; Wang YJ; Hu WQ
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2010 Apr; 19(2):187-91. PubMed ID: 20485985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction techniques on the gingival and periodontal health.
    Al Hamad KQ; Azar WZ; Alwaeli HA; Said KN
    J Clin Periodontol; 2008 Dec; 35(12):1053-8. PubMed ID: 19040582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.