143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22147228)
1. Effect of a cordless retraction paste material on implant surfaces: an in vitro study.
Chang YS; Bennani V; Tawse-Smith A; Girvan L
Braz Oral Res; 2011; 25(6):492-9. PubMed ID: 22147228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of a cordless retraction paste on titanium surface: a topographic, chemical and biocompatibility evaluation.
Cooper K; Bennani V; Tawse-Smith A; Reid M; Stirling C; Dias G
Braz Oral Res; 2013; 27(3):211-7. PubMed ID: 23739788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. A comparison of pressure generated by cordless gingival displacement techniques.
Bennani V; Aarts JM; He LH
J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Jun; 107(6):388-92. PubMed ID: 22633595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Impression taking: still the key to great restorations.
Miller MB
Gen Dent; 2012; 60(6):452-3. PubMed ID: 23220297
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. A comparative study of the accuracy between plastic and metal impression transfer copings for implant restorations.
Fernandez MA; Paez de Mendoza CY; Platt JA; Levon JA; Hovijitra ST; Nimmo A
J Prosthodont; 2013 Jul; 22(5):367-76. PubMed ID: 23387412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Accuracy of implant impressions with different impression coping types and shapes.
Rashidan N; Alikhasi M; Samadizadeh S; Beyabanaki E; Kharazifard MJ
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 Apr; 14(2):218-25. PubMed ID: 19804420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Surface characteristics and cell adhesion: a comparative study of four commercial dental implants.
Liu R; Lei T; Dusevich V; Yao X; Liu Y; Walker MP; Wang Y; Ye L
J Prosthodont; 2013 Dec; 22(8):641-51. PubMed ID: 23725293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A clinical comparison of cordless and conventional displacement systems regarding clinical performance and impression quality.
Acar Ö; Erkut S; Özçelik TB; Ozdemır E; Akçil M
J Prosthet Dent; 2014 May; 111(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 24360008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The human bone-oxidized titanium implant interface: A light microscopic, scanning electron microscopic, back-scatter scanning electron microscopic, and energy-dispersive x-ray study of clinically retrieved dental implants.
Schüpbach P; Glauser R; Rocci A; Martignoni M; Sennerby L; Lundgren A; Gottlow J
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2005; 7 Suppl 1():S36-43. PubMed ID: 16137086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Characterization of the surface properties of commercially available dental implants using scanning electron microscopy, focused ion beam, and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy.
Jarmar T; Palmquist A; Brånemark R; Hermansson L; Engqvist H; Thomsen P
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2008 Mar; 10(1):11-22. PubMed ID: 18254738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of splinting in accuracy of two implant impression techniques.
de Avila ED; de Matos Moraes F; Castanharo SM; Del'Acqua MA; de Assis Mollo F
J Oral Implantol; 2014 Dec; 40(6):633-9. PubMed ID: 25506658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Efficiency of Cordless Versus Cord Techniques of Gingival Retraction: A Systematic Review.
Huang C; Somar M; Li K; Mohadeb JVN
J Prosthodont; 2017 Apr; 26(3):177-185. PubMed ID: 26378615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth: current status.
Bennani V; Schwass D; Chandler N
J Am Dent Assoc; 2008 Oct; 139(10):1354-63. PubMed ID: 18832271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. In vivo evaluation of cp Ti implants with modified surfaces by laser beam with and without hydroxyapatite chemical deposition and without and with thermal treatment: topographic characterization and histomorphometric analysis in rabbits.
Queiroz TP; de Molon RS; Souza FÁ; Margonar R; Thomazini AH; Guastaldi AC; Hochuli-Vieira E
Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Mar; 21(2):685-699. PubMed ID: 27530186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Effect of 2 impression techniques on the dimensional accuracy of working implant prosthesis models: an in vitro study.
Calesini G; Zarone F; Sorrentino R; Micarelli C; Fabianelli A; Papacchini F; Gherlone E
J Craniofac Surg; 2014 May; 25(3):822-7. PubMed ID: 24820709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
