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)

  • 41. Argon ion beam polishing: a preparation technique for evaluating the interface of osseointegrated implants with high resolution.
    Grüner D; Fäldt J; Jansson K; Shen Z
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(3):547-52. PubMed ID: 21691601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. Titanium dental implant surfaces obtained by anodic spark deposition - From the past to the future.
    Kaluđerović MR; Schreckenbach JP; Graf HL
    Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl; 2016 Dec; 69():1429-41. PubMed ID: 27612843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study.
    Lee H; Ercoli C; Funkenbusch PD; Feng C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):107-13. PubMed ID: 18262011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Ultra-structural evaluation of an anodic oxidated titanium dental implant.
    Yamagami A; Nagaoka N; Yoshihara K; Nakamura M; Shirai H; Matsumoto T; Suzuki K; Yoshida Y
    Dent Mater J; 2014; 33(6):828-34. PubMed ID: 25483382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Intraoral Digital Impressioning for Dental Implant Restorations Versus Traditional Implant Impression Techniques.
    Wilk BL
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2015; 36(7):529-30, 532-3. PubMed ID: 26247446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. A simplified impression technique for dental implants.
    Vogel RE
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2002 Mar; 23(3 Suppl 1):13-6. PubMed ID: 11913312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Effect of the Association Between the Tray and Impression Techniques on Angulated Implants Using the All-on-Four System.
    de Avila ED; Castanharo SM; Casalle N; Vasconcelos JA; de Assis Mollo F
    J Oral Implantol; 2015 Jul; 41 Spec No():382-5. PubMed ID: 24641165
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Osteoconductive Potential of Mesoporous Titania Implant Surfaces Loaded with Magnesium: An Experimental Study in the Rabbit.
    Galli S; Naito Y; Karlsson J; He W; Andersson M; Wennerberg A; Jimbo R
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2015 Dec; 17(6):1048-59. PubMed ID: 25178845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. Accuracy of three implant impression techniques with different impression materials and stones.
    Chang WG; Vahidi F; Bae KH; Lim BS
    Int J Prosthodont; 2012; 25(1):44-7. PubMed ID: 22259795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Which surface properties enhance bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite, and Osseotite implant surfaces.
    Sul YT; Johansson C; Albrektsson T
    Int J Prosthodont; 2006; 19(4):319-28. PubMed ID: 16900812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Clinical efficacy of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials using the one-step two-viscosity impression technique.
    Dogan S; Schwedhelm ER; Heindl H; Mancl L; Raigrodski AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Aug; 114(2):217-22. PubMed ID: 25976708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. A clinical report on the use of closed-tray, hex-lock-friction-fit implant impression copings.
    Raviv E; Hanna J; Raviv R; Harel-Raviv M
    J Oral Implantol; 2014 Aug; 40(4):449-53. PubMed ID: 25106009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions.
    Wee AG
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Mar; 83(3):323-31. PubMed ID: 10709042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. The influence of implant placement depth and impression material on the stability of an open tray impression coping.
    Linkevicius T; Svediene O; Vindasiute E; Puisys A; Linkeviciene L
    J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Oct; 108(4):238-43. PubMed ID: 23031730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Relationship between the surface chemical composition of implants and contact with the substrate.
    Lima da Costa Valente M; Shimano AC; Marcantonio Junior E; Reis AC
    J Oral Implantol; 2015 Feb; 41(1):17-21. PubMed ID: 23339297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Accuracy of impression techniques for implants. Part 2 - comparison of splinting techniques.
    Filho HG; Mazaro JV; Vedovatto E; Assunção WG; dos Santos PH
    J Prosthodont; 2009 Feb; 18(2):172-6. PubMed ID: 19178624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Comparison of impression techniques and materials for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA; Chávez AM; Amaral AL; Compagnoni MA; Mollo Fde A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(4):771-6. PubMed ID: 20657873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Evaluation of accuracy of casts of multiple internal connection implant prosthesis obtained from different impression materials and techniques: an in vitro study.
    Pujari M; Garg P; Prithviraj DR
    J Oral Implantol; 2014 Apr; 40(2):137-45. PubMed ID: 24456531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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