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 *

712 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26097353)

  • 1. Comparative evaluation of the amount of gingival displacement produced by three different gingival retraction systems: An in vivo study.
    Chaudhari J; Prajapati P; Patel J; Sethuraman R; Naveen YG
    Contemp Clin Dent; 2015; 6(2):189-95. PubMed ID: 26097353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Evaluation of alpha-adrenomimetic agents for gingival retraction: A randomized crossover clinical trial.
    Mehra N; Rathi A; Sharma R; Kaushik M; Sood T
    J Conserv Dent; 2019; 22(6):533-537. PubMed ID: 33088060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Comparative evaluation of three gingival displacement materials for efficacy in tissue management and dimensional accuracy.
    Gajbhiye V; Banerjee R; Jaiswal P; Chandak A; Radke U
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2019; 19(2):173-179. PubMed ID: 31040552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Efficacy of Different Gingival Displacement Materials in the Management of Gingival Sulcus Width: A Comparative Study.
    Rathod A; Jacob SS; MAlqahtani A; Valsan I; Majeed R; Premnath A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2021 Jun; 22(6):703-706. PubMed ID: 34393130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. The rabbit gingival tissue response to retraction liquids and tetrahydrozoline.
    Kostić I; Mihailović D; Najman S; Stojanović S; Kostić M
    Vojnosanit Pregl; 2014 Jan; 71(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 24516990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of pressure generated by cordless gingival displacement materials.
    Bennani V; Inger M; Aarts JM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Aug; 112(2):163-7. PubMed ID: 24529659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of Effectiveness of Three New Gingival Retraction Systems: A Comparative Study.
    Kumari S; Singh P; Parmar UG; Patel AM
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2021 Aug; 22(8):922-927. PubMed ID: 34753845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical evaluation of three new gingival retraction systems: a research report.
    Gupta A; Prithviraj DR; Gupta D; Shruti DP
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2013 Mar; 13(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 24431705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A multicenter randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing the use of displacement cords, an aluminum chloride paste, and a combination of paste and cords for tissue displacement.
    Einarsdottir ER; Lang NP; Aspelund T; Pjetursson BE
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Jan; 119(1):82-88. PubMed ID: 28478985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of four cordless gingival displacement systems: A clinical study.
    Rayyan MM; Hussien ANM; Sayed NM; Abdallah R; Osman E; El Saad NA; Ramadan S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Feb; 121(2):265-270. PubMed ID: 30722986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparative evaluation of amount of gingival displacement produced by four different gingival displacement agents - An
    Kesari ZI; Karani JT; Mistry SS; Pai AR
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2019; 19(4):313-323. PubMed ID: 31649440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Correlation of pressure and displacement during gingival displacement: An in vitro study.
    Bennani V; Aarts JM; Schumayer D
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Mar; 115(3):296-300. PubMed ID: 26548889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the use of displacement cords and aluminum chloride paste.
    Bennani V; Aarts JM; Brunton P
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2020 Jun; 32(4):410-415. PubMed ID: 32442353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparative evaluation of three noninvasive gingival displacement systems: An
    Thimmappa M; Bhatia M; Somani P; Kumar DRV
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2018; 18(2):122-130. PubMed ID: 29692565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of Gingival Retraction Materials Using a New Gingival Sulcus Model.
    Dederichs M; Fahmy MD; Kuepper H; Guentsch A
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Aug; 28(7):784-789. PubMed ID: 31206914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical Assessment of Gingival Sulcus Width using Various Gingival Displacement Materials.
    Goutham GB; Jayanti I; Jalaluddin M; Avijeeta A; Ramanna PK; Joy J
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 May; 19(5):502-506. PubMed ID: 29807958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of various chemical agents used in gingival retraction systems on smear layer: Scanning electron microscope study.
    Lahoti KS
    Contemp Clin Dent; 2016; 7(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 27041896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 36.