477 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21321624)
1. [Three-dimensional model analysis of the gingival sulcus width from different retraction time].
Zhang Jj; Liu Yh; Lv Pj; Zhao Yj
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2011 Feb; 43(1):73-6. PubMed ID: 21321624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The effect of displacement time on gingival crevice width.
Baharav H; Laufer BZ; Langer Y; Cardash HS
Int J Prosthodont; 1997; 10(3):248-53. PubMed ID: 9484057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Effect of gingival displacement cord and cordless systems on the closure, displacement, and inflammation of the gingival crevice.
Chandra S; Singh A; Gupta KK; Chandra C; Arora V
J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Feb; 115(2):177-82. PubMed ID: 26443067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. [Comparative analysis of 3D data visibility of the prepared tooth finishing line on a synthetic jaw model, captured by international scanners in a laboratory conditions].
Ryakhovskiy AN; Kostyukova VV
Stomatologiia (Mosk); 2016; 95(5):39-46. PubMed ID: 27876722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The closure of the gingival crevice following gingival retraction for impression making.
Laufer BZ; Baharav H; Langer Y; Cardash HS
J Oral Rehabil; 1997 Sep; 24(9):629-35. PubMed ID: 9357742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Gingival displacement using diode laser or retraction cords: A comparative clinical study.
Melilli D; Mauceri R; Albanese A; Matranga D; Pizzo G
Am J Dent; 2018 Jun; 31(3):131-134. PubMed ID: 30028930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical Assessment of Gingival Sulcus Width using Various Gingival Displacement Materials.
Goutham GB; Jayanti I; Jalaluddin M; Avijeeta A; Ramanna PK; Joy J
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 May; 19(5):502-506. PubMed ID: 29807958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A Clinical Study of 50 Partially Edentulous Patients with Fixed Partial Denture Restorations to Compare Clinical Parameters and Changes in Gingival Sulcus Width After Displacement with 2 Different Gingival Retraction Cord Materials (Cotton and Polymer).
Kumar L; Mattoo KA; Jain S; Khalid I; Kota MZ; Baig FAH; Ibrahim M; Javali MA; Khader MA; Kanji MA
Med Sci Monit; 2023 Apr; 29():e940098. PubMed ID: 37183802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. [The retractive effects of different gingival retraction agents].
Feng YZ; Zeng XH
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2011 Feb; 29(1):53-6. PubMed ID: 21427901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effects of pre-soaked retraction cords on the microcirculation of the human gingival margin.
Fazekas A; Csempesz F; Csabai Z; Vág J
Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):343-8. PubMed ID: 12120770
[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. Evaluation of Effectiveness of Three New Gingival Retraction Systems: A Comparative Study.
Kumari S; Singh P; Parmar UG; Patel AM
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2021 Aug; 22(8):922-927. PubMed ID: 34753845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Gingival sulcus simulation model for evaluating the penetration characteristics of elastomeric impression materials.
Aimjirakul P; Masuda T; Takahashi H; Miura H
Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(4):385-9. PubMed ID: 12956493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Preimpression troughing with the diode laser: A preliminary study.
Stuffken M; Vahidi F
J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Apr; 115(4):441-6. PubMed ID: 26723098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
