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 *

191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22282258)

  • 21. Retention and wear behaviors of two implant overdenture stud-type attachments at different implant angulations.
    Choi JW; Bae JH; Jeong CM; Huh JB
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 May; 117(5):628-635. PubMed ID: 27863857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Finite Element Analysis of Stress Distribution in Mandibles with Different Bone Types Loaded by Implant-Supported Overdentures with Different Localizations of Locator Attachments.
    Yıldırım RS; Buyukerkmen EB
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2021; 36(5):851-862. PubMed ID: 34698710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Influence of implant number on the movement of mandibular implant overdentures.
    Oda K; Kanazawa M; Takeshita S; Minakuchi S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Mar; 117(3):380-385. PubMed ID: 27677217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparison of retention and strain energies of stud attachments for implant overdentures.
    Petropoulos VC; Mante FK
    J Prosthodont; 2011 Jun; 20(4):286-93. PubMed ID: 21539646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Retention of Different Attachment Systems for Digitally Designed Mandibular Implant Overdenture.
    Abdelaziz MS; Fawzy AM; Ghali RM; Nassar HI
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Feb; 32(2):162-169. PubMed ID: 35344237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Changes in biting forces with implant-supported overdenture in the lower jaw: A comparison between conventional and mini implants in a pilot study.
    Hasan I; Madarlis C; Keilig L; Dirk C; Weber A; Bourauel C; Heinemann F
    Ann Anat; 2016 Nov; 208():116-122. PubMed ID: 27496252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Attachment systems for mandibular single-implant overdentures: an in vitro retention force investigation on different designs.
    Alsabeeha N; Atieh M; Swain MV; Payne AG
    Int J Prosthodont; 2010; 23(2):160-6. PubMed ID: 20305857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Retention of implant-supported overdenture with bar/clip and stud attachment designs.
    Savabi O; Nejatidanesh F; Yordshahian F
    J Oral Implantol; 2013 Apr; 39(2):140-7. PubMed ID: 21905896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effect of implant number on the movement of mandibular implant-supported overdentures under biting force: An in-vitro study.
    Zhang X; Liu W; Qing H; Pei X; Chen J; Wang J
    Quintessence Int; 2018; 49(9):709-717. PubMed ID: 29989109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Retention force and allowable range of the angle of an implant-supported overdenture attachment system using healing screws and a silicone resilient denture liner.
    Koike T; Kubo K; Kono T; Ueda T; Sakurai K
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Apr; 123(4):630-634. PubMed ID: 31383531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effect of Distal Implant Inclination on Dislodging Forces of Different Locator Attachments Used for Mandibular Overdentures: An In Vitro Study.
    ELsyad MA; Emera RM; Ashmawy TM
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):e666-e674. PubMed ID: 29143403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment systems.
    Pigozzo MN; Mesquita MF; Henriques GE; Vaz LG
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Aug; 102(2):74-80. PubMed ID: 19643220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Evaluation of retention and wear of a titanium-formed stud overdenture attachment with different interimplant angulations after simulated clinical use: An in vitro study.
    Elsonbaty MA; Alshimy AM; Abdul-Monem MM; Neena AF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Aug; 128(2):205.e1-205.e10. PubMed ID: 35842280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Stress analysis of mandibular two-implant overdenture with different attachment systems.
    Takeshita S; Kanazawa M; Minakuchi S
    Dent Mater J; 2011; 30(6):928-34. PubMed ID: 22123019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Retention forces of spherical attachments as a function of implant and matrix angulation in mandibular overdentures: an in vitro study.
    Ortegón SM; Thompson GA; Agar JR; Taylor TD; Perdikis D
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Apr; 101(4):231-8. PubMed ID: 19328276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Retention of maxillary implant overdenture bars of different designs.
    Williams BH; Ochiai KT; Hojo S; Nishimura R; Caputo AA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Dec; 86(6):603-7. PubMed ID: 11753311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effect of LOCATOR attachments with different retentive forces on the stability of 2-implant-retained mandibular overdenture.
    Liu W; Zhang X; Qing H; Wang J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Aug; 124(2):224-229. PubMed ID: 31780109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Retention force and fatigue strength of overdenture attachment systems.
    Botega DM; Mesquita MF; Henriques GE; Vaz LG
    J Oral Rehabil; 2004 Sep; 31(9):884-9. PubMed ID: 15369470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Biomechanical rationale for a single implant-retained mandibular overdenture: an in vitro study.
    Maeda Y; Horisaka M; Yagi K
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2008 Mar; 19(3):271-5. PubMed ID: 18081872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures.
    Abi Nader S; de Souza RF; Fortin D; De Koninck L; Fromentin O; Albuquerque Junior RF
    J Oral Rehabil; 2011 Mar; 38(3):157-64. PubMed ID: 20819139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.