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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22654322)

  • 1. Accuracy of probing attachment levels using a new computerized cemento-enamel junction probe.
    Deepa R; Prakash S
    J Indian Soc Periodontol; 2012 Jan; 16(1):74-9. PubMed ID: 22654322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of probing attachment levels using a CEJ probe versus traditional probes.
    Karpinia K; Magnusson I; Gibbs C; Yang MC
    J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Mar; 31(3):173-6. PubMed ID: 15016020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparative evaluation of accuracy of periodontal probing depth and attachment levels using a Florida probe versus traditional probes.
    Gupta N; Rath SK; Lohra P
    Med J Armed Forces India; 2015 Oct; 71(4):352-8. PubMed ID: 26663963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Measurement of clinical attachment levels using a constant-force periodontal probe modified to detect the cemento-enamel junction.
    Preshaw PM; Kupp L; Hefti AF; Mariotti A
    J Clin Periodontol; 1999 Jul; 26(7):434-40. PubMed ID: 10412847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The location of cemento enamel junction for CAL measurement: A clinical crisis.
    Vandana KL; Gupta I
    J Indian Soc Periodontol; 2009 Jan; 13(1):12-5. PubMed ID: 20376234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparative evaluation of probing depth and clinical attachment level using a manual probe and Florida probe.
    Kour A; Kumar A; Puri K; Khatri M; Bansal M; Gupta G
    J Indian Soc Periodontol; 2016; 20(3):299-306. PubMed ID: 27563204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Reproducibility of attachment level measurements with two models of the Florida Probe.
    Marks RG; Low SB; Taylor M; Baggs R; Magnusson I; Clark WB
    J Clin Periodontol; 1991 Nov; 18(10):780-4. PubMed ID: 1753003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A periodontal probe with automated cemento--enamel junction detection-design and clinical trials.
    Jeffcoat MK; Jeffcoat RL; Captain K
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1991 Apr; 38(4):330-3. PubMed ID: 1855793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reproducibility of Manual Periodontal Probing Following a Comprehensive Standardization and Calibration Training Program.
    Fitzgerald BP; Hawley CE; Harrold CQ; Garrett JS; Polson AM; Rams TE
    J Oral Biol (Northborough); 2022 Jun; 8(1):. PubMed ID: 36225716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Sources of error for periodontal probing measurements.
    Grossi SG; Dunford RG; Ho A; Koch G; Machtei EE; Genco RJ
    J Periodontal Res; 1996 Jul; 31(5):330-6. PubMed ID: 8858537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of measurement variability in subjects with moderate periodontitis using a conventional and constant force periodontal probe.
    Osborn JB; Stoltenberg JL; Huso BA; Aeppli DM; Pihlstrom BL
    J Periodontol; 1992 Apr; 63(4):283-9. PubMed ID: 1573541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of measurement variability using a standard and constant force periodontal probe.
    Osborn J; Stoltenberg J; Huso B; Aeppli D; Pihlstrom B
    J Periodontol; 1990 Aug; 61(8):497-503. PubMed ID: 2391627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparative assessment of conventional periodontal probes and CEJ handpiece of electronic probes in the diagnosis and primary care of periodontal disease.
    Bareja H; Bansal M; Naveen Kumar PG
    J Family Med Prim Care; 2021 Feb; 10(2):692-698. PubMed ID: 34041063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of manual and automated probing in an untreated periodontitis population.
    Oringer RJ; Fiorellini JP; Koch GG; Sharp TJ; Nevins ML; Davis GH; Howell TH
    J Periodontol; 1997 Dec; 68(12):1156-62. PubMed ID: 9444589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Detection of the cemento-enamel junction with three different probes: an "in vitro" model.
    Barendregt DS; van der Velden U; Timmerman MF; Bulthuis HM; van der Weijden F
    J Clin Periodontol; 2009 Mar; 36(3):212-8. PubMed ID: 19196382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical attachment level measurements with and without the use of a stent by a computerized electronic probe.
    Machion L; Andia DC; Nociti Júnior FH; Casati MZ; Sallum AW; Sallum EA
    J Int Acad Periodontol; 2007 Apr; 9(2):58-62. PubMed ID: 17506385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of manual and controlled-force attachment-level measurements.
    Reddy MS; Palcanis KG; Geurs NC
    J Clin Periodontol; 1997 Dec; 24(12):920-6. PubMed ID: 9442430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Enamel matrix derivative in intrabony defects: prognostic parameters of clinical and radiographic treatment outcomes.
    Parashis AO; Polychronopoulou A; Tsiklakis K; Tatakis DN
    J Periodontol; 2012 Nov; 83(11):1346-52. PubMed ID: 22248222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reliability of attachment level measurements using the cementoenamel junction and a plastic stent.
    Clark DC; Chin Quee T; Bergeron MJ; Chan EC; Lautar-Lemay C; de Gruchy K
    J Periodontol; 1987 Feb; 58(2):115-8. PubMed ID: 3469400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Accuracy and reproducibility of two manual periodontal probes. An in vitro study.
    Buduneli E; Aksoy O; Köse T; Atilla G
    J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Oct; 31(10):815-9. PubMed ID: 15367182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.