145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26663963)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. The prognostic value of several periodontal factors measured as radiographic bone level variation: a 10-year retrospective multilevel analysis of treated and maintained periodontal patients.
Nieri M; Muzzi L; Cattabriga M; Rotundo R; Cairo F; Pini Prato GP
J Periodontol; 2002 Dec; 73(12):1485-93. PubMed ID: 12546099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
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. In vitro accuracy and reproducibility of automated and conventional periodontal probes.
Samuel ED; Griffiths GS; Petrie A
J Clin Periodontol; 1997 May; 24(5):340-5. PubMed ID: 9178114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Accuracy and reproducibility of probe forces during simulated periodontal pocket depth measurements.
Al Shayeb KN; Turner W; Gillam DG
Saudi Dent J; 2014 Apr; 26(2):50-5. PubMed ID: 25408596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
