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 *

203 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23420864)

  • 21. A comparison of panoramic radiography with computed tomography in the planning of implant surgery.
    Tal H; Moses O
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1991 Feb; 20(1):40-2. PubMed ID: 1884852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Evaluation of cortical bone thickness and root proximity at maxillary interradicular sites for mini-implant placement.
    Sawada K; Nakahara K; Matsunaga S; Abe S; Ide Y
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Aug; 24 Suppl A100():1-7. PubMed ID: 22092972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Three-dimensional assessment of crestal bone levels at titanium implants with different abutment microstructures and insertion depths using micro-computed tomography.
    Becker K; Klitzsch I; Stauber M; Schwarz F
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Jun; 28(6):671-676. PubMed ID: 27417919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Accuracy of peri-implant bone thickness and validity of assessing bone augmentation material using cone beam computed tomography.
    Wang D; Künzel A; Golubovic V; Mihatovic I; John G; Chen Z; Becker J; Schwarz F
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Jul; 17(6):1601-9. PubMed ID: 23064974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Efficacy of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography in Evaluating Bone Quality for Optimum Implant Treatment Planning.
    Liu J; Chen HY; DoDo H; Yousef H; Firestone AR; Chaudhry J; Johnston WM; Lee DJ; Emam HA; Kim DG
    Implant Dent; 2017 Jun; 26(3):405-411. PubMed ID: 28125517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The reliability of surgeons to avoid traumatic insertion of dental implants into high-risk regions: a panoramic radiograph study.
    Jamil FA; Mohammed JA; Hasan TA; Rzoqi MG
    BMC Oral Health; 2020 Apr; 20(1):96. PubMed ID: 32252728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Is micro-computed tomography reliable to determine the microstructure of the maxillary alveolar bone?
    González-García R; Monje F
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Jul; 24(7):730-7. PubMed ID: 22540518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Should Cone Beam Computed Tomography Be Routinely Obtained in Implant Planning?
    Omami G; Al Yafi F
    Dent Clin North Am; 2019 Jul; 63(3):363-379. PubMed ID: 31097132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A case against routine computed tomography imaging of the dental alveolus before implant placement.
    Pieper SP; Lewis SG
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2001 Jan; 59(1):68-70. PubMed ID: 11152192
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Optimization of cone beam CT exposure for pre-surgical evaluation of the implant site.
    Dawood A; Brown J; Sauret-Jackson V; Purkayastha S
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2012 Jan; 41(1):70-4. PubMed ID: 22184628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Radiographic determinants of implant performance.
    Reddy MS; Wang IC
    Adv Dent Res; 1999 Jun; 13():136-45. PubMed ID: 11276736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The use of cross-sectional spiral tomography in the placement of implants.
    Campbell DJ
    N Z Dent J; 2001 Jun; 97(428):49-51. PubMed ID: 11468933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review.
    Fokas G; Vaughn VM; Scarfe WC; Bornstein MM
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():393-415. PubMed ID: 30328204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Assessing Bone Type of Implant Recipient Sites by Stereomicroscopic Observation of Bone Core Specimens: A Comparison With the Assessment Using Dental Radiography.
    Fu MW; Shen EC; Fu E; Lin FG; Wang TY; Chiu HC
    J Periodontol; 2017 Jun; 88(6):593-601. PubMed ID: 28398151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Multichannel computed tomography versus cone-beam computed tomography: linear accuracy of in vitro measurements of the maxilla for implant placement.
    Fatemitabar SA; Nikgoo A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(3):499-505. PubMed ID: 20556248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Dental implant imaging: TeraRecon's Dental 3D Cone Beam Computed Tomography System.
    Garg AK
    Dent Implantol Update; 2007 Jun; 18(6):41-5. PubMed ID: 17682685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Evaluation of sinus floor augmentation with simultaneous implant placement using platelet-rich fibrin as sole grafting material.
    Tajima N; Ohba S; Sawase T; Asahina I
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(1):77-83. PubMed ID: 23377050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Correlation of Fractal Dimension Values with Implant Insertion Torque and Resonance Frequency Values at Implant Recipient Sites.
    Suer BT; Yaman Z; Buyuksarac B
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2016; 31(1):55-62. PubMed ID: 26478979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Radiographic techniques.
    Floyd P; Palmer P; Palmer R
    Br Dent J; 1999 Oct; 187(7):359-65. PubMed ID: 10581812
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The influence of dental implants in periapical and panoramic radiographs and cone beam computed tomography images: a clinical study.
    Felix RP; Shinkai RSA; Rockenbach MIB
    Gen Dent; 2018; 66(2):e1-e6. PubMed ID: 29513241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.