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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22633595)

  • 21. Comparative Evaluation of the Amount of Gingival Displacement Using Three Recent Gingival Retraction Systems -
    Qureshi SM; Anasane NS; Kakade D
    Contemp Clin Dent; 2020; 11(1):28-33. PubMed ID: 33110305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Factors affecting the accuracy of elastometric impression materials.
    Chen SY; Liang WM; Chen FN
    J Dent; 2004 Nov; 32(8):603-9. PubMed ID: 15476954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Compatibility of tissue conditioners and dental stones: effect on surface roughness.
    Murata H; Hong G; Li YA; Hamada T
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Mar; 93(3):274-81. PubMed ID: 15775929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The effect of adding a stone base on the accuracy of working casts using different types of dental stone.
    Al-Abidi K; Ellakwa A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Sep; 7(4):17-28. PubMed ID: 16957787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Evaluation of impression accuracy for implant at various angulations.
    Assunção WG; Britto RC; Ricardo Barão VA; Delben JA; dos Santos PH
    Implant Dent; 2010 Apr; 19(2):167-74. PubMed ID: 20386220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Synthesis and evaluation of a novel injectable and water-swelling gingival displacement materials].
    Xu X; Zhu X; Ning T; Liu W; Li Q
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2012 Apr; 30(2):139-42. PubMed ID: 22594228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Efficacy of conventional cord versus cordless techniques for gingival displacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Martins FV; Santana RB; Fonseca EM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Jan; 125(1):46-55. PubMed ID: 32008797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Gingival sulcus simulation model for evaluating the penetration characteristics of elastomeric impression materials.
    Aimjirakul P; Masuda T; Takahashi H; Miura H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(4):385-9. PubMed ID: 12956493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparative clinical efficacy evaluation of three gingival displacement systems.
    Shrivastava KJ; Bhoyar A; Agarwal S; Shrivastava S; Parlani S; Murthy V
    J Nat Sci Biol Med; 2015 Aug; 6(Suppl 1):S53-7. PubMed ID: 26604620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Type IV gypsum compatibility with five addition-reaction silicone impression materials.
    Butta R; Tredwin CJ; Nesbit M; Moles DR
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Jun; 93(6):540-4. PubMed ID: 15942614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Setting expansion of dental stone in hydrophilic addition type silicone impression].
    Kakuta K; Ogura H; Miyagawa Y; Kashiwagi Y
    Shika Zairyo Kikai; 1989 Sep; 8(5):736-40. PubMed ID: 2490217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [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]  

  • 33. A comparison of dimensional accuracy between three different addition cured silicone impression materials.
    Forrester-Baker L; Seymour KG; Samarawickrama D; Zou L; Cherukara G; Patel M
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2005 Jun; 13(2):69-74. PubMed ID: 16011234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. The effect of seating velocity on pressure within impressions.
    Hyde TP; Craddock H; Brunton P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Nov; 100(5):384-9. PubMed ID: 18992572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Effect of self-made colloid paste on gingival retraction in dogs].
    Li N; Liu WC; Zhang Y; Han DW; Wang YJ; Hu WQ
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2010 Apr; 19(2):187-91. PubMed ID: 20485985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effect of retraction materials on gingival health: A histopathological study.
    Phatale S; Marawar PP; Byakod G; Lagdive SB; Kalburge JV
    J Indian Soc Periodontol; 2010 Jan; 14(1):35-9. PubMed ID: 20922077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Dimensional accuracy of improved dental stone and epoxy resin die materials. Part I: Single die.
    Chaffee NR; Bailey JH; Sherrard DJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 1997 Feb; 77(2):131-5. PubMed ID: 9051599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Assessment of Aluminum Chloride Retraction Cords, Expasyl, and Tetrahydrozoline-Soaked Retraction Systems in Gingival Retraction.
    Kavita K; Sinha RI; Singh R; Singh R; Reddy KRP; Kulkarni G
    J Pharm Bioallied Sci; 2020 Aug; 12(Suppl 1):S440-S443. PubMed ID: 33149502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.