196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22847855)
1. Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components.
Schiessl C; Schaefer L; Winter C; Fuerst J; Rosentritt M; Zeman F; Behr M
Clin Oral Investig; 2013 May; 17(4):1179-90. PubMed ID: 22847855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Retentiveness of various luting agents used with implant-supported prosthesis: an in vitro study.
Garg P; Pujari M; Prithviraj DR; Khare S
J Oral Implantol; 2014 Dec; 40(6):649-54. PubMed ID: 25506659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Retention of implant-supported zirconium oxide ceramic restorations using different luting agents.
Nejatidanesh F; Savabi O; Shahtoosi M
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Aug; 24 Suppl A100():20-4. PubMed ID: 22092303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements.
Mansour A; Ercoli C; Graser G; Tallents R; Moss M
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2002 Aug; 13(4):343-8. PubMed ID: 12175370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Retention of zirconium oxide ceramic crowns with three types of cement.
Palacios RP; Johnson GH; Phillips KM; Raigrodski AJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Aug; 96(2):104-14. PubMed ID: 16911887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation.
Mehl C; Harder S; Wolfart M; Kern M; Wolfart S
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2008 Dec; 19(12):1304-11. PubMed ID: 19040447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cement selection for implant-supported crowns fabricated with different luting space settings.
Gultekin P; Gultekin BA; Aydin M; Yalcin S
J Prosthodont; 2013 Feb; 22(2):112-9. PubMed ID: 23387964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components.
Squier RS; Agar JR; Duncan JP; Taylor TD
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2001; 16(6):793-8. PubMed ID: 11769829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Retention of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns on prefabricated implant abutments: an in vitro comparative study of luting agents and abutment surface area.
Carnaggio TV; Conrad R; Engelmeier RL; Gerngross P; Paravina R; Perezous L; Powers JM
J Prosthodont; 2012 Oct; 21(7):523-8. PubMed ID: 22469271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns.
J Prosthet Dent; ; . PubMed ID: 16765158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
