579 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22251013)
1. The role of surface implant treatments on the biological behavior of SaOS-2 osteoblast-like cells. An in vitro comparative study.
Conserva E; Menini M; Ravera G; Pera P
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Aug; 24(8):880-9. PubMed ID: 22251013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Sandblasted-acid-etched titanium surface influences in vitro the biological behavior of SaOS-2 human osteoblast-like cells.
Ramaglia L; Postiglione L; Di Spigna G; Capece G; Salzano S; Rossi G
Dent Mater J; 2011; 30(2):183-92. PubMed ID: 21422669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The effect of titanium with electrochemical anodization on the response of the adherent osteoblast-like cell.
Lin YH; Peng PW; Ou KL
Implant Dent; 2012 Aug; 21(4):344-9. PubMed ID: 22811017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Initial attachment, subsequent cell proliferation/viability and gene expression of epithelial cells related to attachment and wound healing in response to different titanium surfaces.
An N; Rausch-fan X; Wieland M; Matejka M; Andrukhov O; Schedle A
Dent Mater; 2012 Dec; 28(12):1207-14. PubMed ID: 23083807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cell response of titanium implant with a roughened surface containing titanium hydride: an in vitro study.
Zhang F; Yang GL; He FM; Zhang LJ; Zhao SF
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 May; 68(5):1131-9. PubMed ID: 20202734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Hydroxyapatite and silk combination-coated dental implants result in superior bone formation in the peri-implant area compared with hydroxyapatite and collagen combination-coated implants.
Kweon H; Lee SW; Hahn BD; Lee YC; Kim SG
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2014 Oct; 72(10):1928-36. PubMed ID: 25234528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A new chemical etching process to improve endosseous implant osseointegration: in vitro evaluation on human osteoblast-like cells.
Giordano C; Sandrini E; Busini V; Chiesa R; Fumagalli G; Giavaresi G; Fini M; Giardino R; Cigada A
Int J Artif Organs; 2006 Aug; 29(8):772-80. PubMed ID: 16969755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Surface analysis of machined versus sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implants.
Orsini G; Assenza B; Scarano A; Piattelli M; Piattelli A
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2000; 15(6):779-84. PubMed ID: 11151575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Osteoblast-like cell attachment and proliferation on turned, blasted, and anodized titanium surfaces.
Pae A; Kim SS; Kim HS; Woo YH
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(3):475-81. PubMed ID: 21691593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of chemically modified titanium surfaces on protein adsorption and osteoblast precursor cell behavior.
Protivínský J; Appleford M; Strnad J; Helebrant A; Ong JL
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2007; 22(4):542-50. PubMed ID: 17929514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Submicron scale-structured hydrophilic titanium surfaces promote early osteogenic gene response for cell adhesion and cell differentiation.
Klein MO; Bijelic A; Ziebart T; Koch F; Kämmerer PW; Wieland M; Konerding MA; Al-Nawas B
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2013 Apr; 15(2):166-75. PubMed ID: 21682843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Analysis of osteoblastic gene expression in the early human mesenchymal cell response to a chemically modified implant surface: an in vitro study.
Mamalis AA; Silvestros SS
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2011 May; 22(5):530-7. PubMed ID: 21121959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Response of osteoblast-like SAOS-2 cells to zirconia ceramics with different surface topographies.
Hempel U; Hefti T; Kalbacova M; Wolf-Brandstetter C; Dieter P; Schlottig F
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2010 Feb; 21(2):174-81. PubMed ID: 19709059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of human mandibular osteoblasts grown on two commercially available titanium implant surfaces.
Galli C; Guizzardi S; Passeri G; Martini D; Tinti A; Mauro G; Macaluso GM
J Periodontol; 2005 Mar; 76(3):364-72. PubMed ID: 15857069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The response of osteoblast-like SaOS-2 cells to modified titanium surfaces.
Pivodova V; Frankova J; Dolezel P; Ulrichova J
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(5):1386-94. PubMed ID: 24066332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Response of human bone marrow stromal cells, MG-63, and SaOS-2 to titanium-based dental implant surfaces with different topography and surface energy.
Hempel U; Hefti T; Dieter P; Schlottig F
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Feb; 24(2):174-82. PubMed ID: 22092368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Different titanium surface treatment influences human mandibular osteoblast response.
Guizzardi S; Galli C; Martini D; Belletti S; Tinti A; Raspanti M; Taddei P; Ruggeri A; Scandroglio R
J Periodontol; 2004 Feb; 75(2):273-82. PubMed ID: 15068116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cell behavior related to implant surfaces with different microstructure and chemical composition: an in vitro analysis.
Conserva E; Lanuti A; Menini M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(6):1099-107. PubMed ID: 21197485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluation of the bioactivity of titanium after varied surface treatments using human osteosarcoma osteoblast cells: an in vitro study.
Singh RG
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(5):998-1003. PubMed ID: 22010082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The influence of titanium surfaces in cultures of neonatal rat calvarial osteoblast-like cells: an immunohistochemical study.
Aybar B; Emes Y; Atalay B; Tanrikulu S; Kaya AS; Işsever H; Ceyhan T; Bilir A
Implant Dent; 2009 Feb; 18(1):75-85. PubMed ID: 19212240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
