137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21448015)
1. Comparative analysis of microorganism species succession on three implant surfaces with different roughness: an in vivo study.
de Freitas MM; da Silva CH; Groisman M; Vidigal GM
Implant Dent; 2011 Apr; 20(2):e14-23. PubMed ID: 21448015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Biofilm on dental implants: a review of the literature.
Subramani K; Jung RE; Molenberg A; Hammerle CH
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(4):616-26. PubMed ID: 19885401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Bone mineral apposition rates at early implantation times around differently prepared titanium surfaces: a study in beagle dogs.
Coelho PG; Freire JN; Granato R; Marin C; Bonfante EA; Gil JN; Chuang SK; Suzuki M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(1):63-9. PubMed ID: 21365039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of electrochemically deposited nanohydroxyapatite on bone bonding of sandblasted/dual acid-etched titanium implant.
He F; Yang G; Wang X; Zhao S
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(5):790-9. PubMed ID: 19865618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Increased bone formation around coated implants.
Stadlinger B; Bierbaum S; Grimmer S; Schulz MC; Kuhlisch E; Scharnweber D; Eckelt U; Mai R
J Clin Periodontol; 2009 Aug; 36(8):698-704. PubMed ID: 19531092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Comparison of bioactive glass coated and hydroxyapatite coated titanium dental implants in the human jaw bone.
Mistry S; Kundu D; Datta S; Basu D
Aust Dent J; 2011 Mar; 56(1):68-75. PubMed ID: 21332743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Implant surface topographies analyzed using fractal dimension.
Iezzi G; Aprile G; Tripodi D; Scarano A; Piattelli A; Perrotti V
Implant Dent; 2011 Apr; 20(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 21448022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Influence of the height of the external hexagon and surface treatment on fatigue life of commercially pure titanium dental implants.
Gil FJ; Aparicio C; Manero JM; Padros A
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(4):583-90. PubMed ID: 19885397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Temperature changes at the implant-bone interface during simulated surface decontamination with an Er:YAG laser.
Kreisler M; Al Haj H; d'Hoedt B
Int J Prosthodont; 2002; 15(6):582-7. PubMed ID: 12475166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Enhanced osteoconductivity of micro-structured titanium implants (XiVE S CELLplus) by addition of surface calcium chemistry: a histomorphometric study in the rabbit femur.
Park JW; Kim HK; Kim YJ; An CH; Hanawa T
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2009 Jul; 20(7):684-90. PubMed ID: 19489932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Histomorphometric evaluation of a nanothickness bioceramic deposition on endosseous implants: a study in dogs.
Coelho PG; Cardaropoli G; Suzuki M; Lemons JE
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2009 Dec; 11(4):292-302. PubMed ID: 18783412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Long-term evaluation of implant survival in augmented sinuses: a case series.
Yamamichi N; Itose T; Neiva R; Wang HL
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2008 Apr; 28(2):163-9. PubMed ID: 18546812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effects of 10 cleaning instruments on four different implant surfaces.
Schmage P; Thielemann J; Nergiz I; Scorziello TM; Pfeiffer P
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(2):308-17. PubMed ID: 22442769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An in vitro and in vivo evaluation of bioactive titanium implants following sodium removal treatment.
Fawzy AS; Amer MA
Dent Mater; 2009 Jan; 25(1):48-57. PubMed ID: 18585776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Surface and biomechanical study of titanium implants modified by laser with and without hydroxyapatite coating, in rabbits.
Sisti KE; de Rossi R; Antoniolli AM; Aydos RD; Guastaldi AC; Queiroz TP; Garcia IR; Piattelli A; Tavares HS
J Oral Implantol; 2012 Jun; 38(3):231-7. PubMed ID: 20690851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Biological performance of chemical hydroxyapatite coating associated with implant surface modification by laser beam: biomechanical study in rabbit tibias.
Faeda RS; Tavares HS; Sartori R; Guastaldi AC; Marcantonio E
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Aug; 67(8):1706-15. PubMed ID: 19615586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comparison of hydroxyapatite (HA) -coated threaded, HA-coated cylindric, and titanium threaded endosseous dental implants.
Jeffcoat MK; McGlumphy EA; Reddy MS; Geurs NC; Proskin HM
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2003; 18(3):406-10. PubMed ID: 12814316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The effect of alterations on resorbable blasting media processed implant surfaces on early bone healing: a study in rabbits.
Marin C; Bonfante EA; Granato R; Suzuki M; Granjeiro JM; Coelho PG
Implant Dent; 2011 Apr; 20(2):167-77. PubMed ID: 21448026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
