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 *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22147228)

  • 21. Comparison between bioactive fluoride modified and bioinert anodically oxidized implant surfaces in early bone response using rabbit tibia model.
    Choi JY; Lee HJ; Jang JU; Yeo IS
    Implant Dent; 2012 Apr; 21(2):124-8. PubMed ID: 22382750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The Impact of Expasyl® Gingival Retraction Paste on the Bond Strength of Self-etch and Total-etch Systems.
    Al Baker AM; El Araby A; Al Amri MD; Sukumaran A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2015 May; 16(5):335-9. PubMed ID: 26162250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Accuracy of impression techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA; Chávez AM; Compagnoni MA; Molo Fde A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(4):715-21. PubMed ID: 20657866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Gingival displacement techniques in daily practice. Survey among dental surgeons in Abidjan, Ivory Coast].
    Pesson DM; Bakou OD; Didia EL; Kouame A; Blohoua MR; Djeredou KB
    Odontostomatol Trop; 2015 Dec; 38(152):25-32. PubMed ID: 26939218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Master cast implant impression: using the open-tray technique.
    Briley TF
    Dent Implantol Update; 2002 Oct; 13(10):73-80. PubMed ID: 12455316
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Osteoblastic cell behaviour on modified titanium surfaces.
    Lukaszewska-Kuska M; Wirstlein P; Majchrowski R; Dorocka-Bobkowska B
    Micron; 2018 Feb; 105():55-63. PubMed ID: 29179009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. XPS, AES and SEM analysis of recent dental implants.
    Kang BS; Sul YT; Oh SJ; Lee HJ; Albrektsson T
    Acta Biomater; 2009 Jul; 5(6):2222-9. PubMed ID: 19261554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Surface characterization of three titanium dental implants.
    Fandridis J; Papadopoulos T
    Implant Dent; 2008 Mar; 17(1):91-9. PubMed ID: 18332762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Oxidized titanium implants (Nobel Biocare TiUnite) compared with turned titanium implants (Nobel Biocare mark III) with respect to implant failure in a group of consecutive patients treated with early functional loading and two-stage protocol.
    Jungner M; Lundqvist P; Lundgren S
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2005 Jun; 16(3):308-12. PubMed ID: 15877751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays.
    Burns J; Palmer R; Howe L; Wilson R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Mar; 89(3):250-5. PubMed ID: 12644799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A novel technique to record crown and bridge impressions consistently.
    Goodchild JH; Conte NR
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2013 Sep; 34 Spec No 6():9-13. PubMed ID: 24350913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Performance of fast-setting impression materials in the reproduction of subgingival tooth surfaces without soft tissue retraction.
    Rudolph H; Röhl A; Walter MH; Luthardt RG; Quaas S
    Int J Prosthodont; 2014; 27(4):366-75. PubMed ID: 25010882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Analysis of failed commercially pure titanium dental implants: a scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive spectrometer x-ray study.
    Shibli JA; Marcantonio E; d'Avila S; Guastaldi AC; Marcantonio E
    J Periodontol; 2005 Jul; 76(7):1092-9. PubMed ID: 16018751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of four cordless gingival displacement systems: A clinical study.
    Rayyan MM; Hussien ANM; Sayed NM; Abdallah R; Osman E; El Saad NA; Ramadan S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Feb; 121(2):265-270. PubMed ID: 30722986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Simplifying and improving soft-tissue management for fixed-prosthodontic impressions.
    Christensen GJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2013 Feb; 144(2):198-200. PubMed ID: 23372137
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Accuracy of four transfer impression techniques for dental implants: a scanning electron microscopic analysis.
    Yamamoto E; Marotti J; de Campos TT; Neto PT
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(6):1115-24. PubMed ID: 21197487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Identification card and codification of the chemical and morphological characteristics of 14 dental implant surfaces.
    Dohan Ehrenfest DM; Vazquez L; Park YJ; Sammartino G; Bernard JP
    J Oral Implantol; 2011 Oct; 37(5):525-42. PubMed ID: 21728785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.