193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27333590)
1. The Setting Time of Polyether Impression Materials after Contact with Conventional and Experimental Gingival Margin Displacement Agents.
Nowakowska D; Raszewski Z; Ziętek M; Saczko J; Kulbacka J; Więckiewicz W
J Prosthodont; 2018 Feb; 27(2):182-188. PubMed ID: 27333590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Polymerization time compatibility index of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials with conventional and experimental gingival margin displacement agents.
Nowakowska D; Raszewski Z; Saczko J; Kulbacka J; Więckiewicz W
J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Aug; 112(2):168-75. PubMed ID: 24461950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Temperature effects on the rheological properties of current polyether and polysiloxane impression materials during setting.
Berg JC; Johnson GH; Lepe X; Adán-Plaza S
J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Aug; 90(2):150-61. PubMed ID: 12886208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of conventional and experimental gingival retraction solutions on the tensile strength and inhibition of polymerization of four types of impression materials.
Sábio S; Franciscone PA; Mondelli J
J Appl Oral Sci; 2008; 16(4):280-5. PubMed ID: 19089261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Effect of different kinds of gingival retraction agents on the polymerization inhibition of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials].
Hou QQ; Ge H; Gao YM
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2023 Jun; 32(3):251-254. PubMed ID: 37803978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of new gingival retraction agents.
Bowles WH; Tardy SJ; Vahadi A
J Dent Res; 1991 Nov; 70(11):1447-9. PubMed ID: 1960257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Clinical success rates for polyether crown impressions when mixed dynamically and statically.
Schmitter M; Johnson GH; Faggion C; Klose C; Mitov G; Nothdurft FP; Pospiech PR; Rammelsberg P; Ohlmann B; Schwarz S; Stober T; Schiller P; Pritsch M
Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Jun; 16(3):951-60. PubMed ID: 21611728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Influence of prolonged setting time on permanent deformation of elastomeric impression materials.
Balkenhol M; Haunschild S; Erbe C; Wöstmann B
J Prosthet Dent; 2010 May; 103(5):288-94. PubMed ID: 20416412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Pre- and post-set hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials.
Michalakis KX; Bakopoulou A; Hirayama H; Garefis DP; Garefis PD
J Prosthodont; 2007; 16(4):238-48. PubMed ID: 17559537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A clinical comparison of cordless and conventional displacement systems regarding clinical performance and impression quality.
Acar Ö; Erkut S; Özçelik TB; Ozdemır E; Akçil M
J Prosthet Dent; 2014 May; 111(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 24360008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cytotoxic potential of vasoconstrictor experimental gingival retraction agents: in vitro study on primary human gingival fibroblasts.
Nowakowska D; Saczko J; Kulbacka J; Choromanska A; Raszewski Z
Folia Biol (Praha); 2012; 58(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 22464823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Investigation of a new approach to measuring contact angles for hydrophilic impression materials.
Kugel G; Klettke T; Goldberg JA; Benchimol J; Perry RD; Sharma S
J Prosthodont; 2007; 16(2):84-92. PubMed ID: 17362417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Chemical Retraction Agents - in vivo and in vitro Studies into their Physico-Chemical Properties, Biocompatibility with Gingival Margin Tissues and Compatibility with Elastomer Impression Materials.
Nowakowska D; Saczko J; Kulbacka J; Wicckiewicz W
Mini Rev Med Chem; 2017; 17(5):435-444. PubMed ID: 27087463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Correlation of impression removal force with elastomeric impression material rigidity and hardness.
Walker MP; Alderman N; Petrie CS; Melander J; McGuire J
J Prosthodont; 2013 Jul; 22(5):362-6. PubMed ID: 23387301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Gingival sulcus simulation model for evaluating the penetration characteristics of elastomeric impression materials.
Aimjirakul P; Masuda T; Takahashi H; Miura H
Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(4):385-9. PubMed ID: 12956493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays.
Johnson GH; Mancl LA; Schwedhelm ER; Verhoef DR; Lepe X
J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Jan; 103(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 20105676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The dynamic interaction of water with four dental impression materials during cure.
Hosseinpour D; Berg JC
J Prosthodont; 2009 Jun; 18(4):292-300. PubMed ID: 19210607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effects of pre-soaked retraction cords on the microcirculation of the human gingival margin.
Fazekas A; Csempesz F; Csabai Z; Vág J
Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):343-8. PubMed ID: 12120770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Contact angle of unset elastomeric impression materials.
Menees TS; Radhakrishnan R; Ramp LC; Burgess JO; Lawson NC
J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):536-42. PubMed ID: 26187106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
