272 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29797806)
1. Root surface alterations following manual and mechanical scaling: A comparative study.
Maritato M; Orazi L; Laurito D; Formisano G; Serra E; Lollobrigida M; Molinari A; De Biase A
Int J Dent Hyg; 2018 Nov; 16(4):553-558. PubMed ID: 29797806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Histological and profilometric evaluation of the root surface after instrumentation with a new piezoelectric device - ex vivo study.
Silva D; Martins O; Matos S; Lopes P; Rolo T; Baptista I
Int J Dent Hyg; 2015 May; 13(2):138-44. PubMed ID: 24995862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effect of instrumentation using curettes, piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler and Er,Cr:YSGG laser on the morphology and adhesion of blood components on root surfaces: a SEM study.
Tsurumaki Jdo N; Souto BH; Oliveira GJ; Sampaio JE; Marcantonio Júnior E; Marcantonio RA
Braz Dent J; 2011; 22(3):185-92. PubMed ID: 21915514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of root surface microtopography following the use of four instrumentation systems by confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy: an in vitro study.
Solís Moreno C; Santos A; Nart J; Levi P; Velásquez A; Sanz Moliner J
J Periodontal Res; 2012 Oct; 47(5):608-15. PubMed ID: 22494068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparative study on the effect of ultrasonic instruments on the root surface in vivo.
Santos FA; Pochapski MT; Leal PC; Gimenes-Sakima PP; Marcantonio E
Clin Oral Investig; 2008 Jun; 12(2):143-50. PubMed ID: 18060565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A comparison of root surface instrumentation using two piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers and a hand scaler in vivo.
Kawashima H; Sato S; Kishida M; Ito K
J Periodontal Res; 2007 Feb; 42(1):90-5. PubMed ID: 17214645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A comparative in vitro study of a magnetostrictive and a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling instrument.
Busslinger A; Lampe K; Beuchat M; Lehmann B
J Clin Periodontol; 2001 Jul; 28(7):642-9. PubMed ID: 11422585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The effect of the angle of instrumentation of the Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Scaler on root surfaces.
Oliveira G; Macedo PD; Tsurumaki JN; Sampaio JE; Marcantonio R
Int J Dent Hyg; 2016 Aug; 14(3):184-90. PubMed ID: 25690687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Subgingival polishing with a teflon-coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments as assessed on extracted teeth. (I) Residual deposits.
Kocher T; Langenbeck M; Rühling A; Plagmann HC
J Clin Periodontol; 2000 Apr; 27(4):243-9. PubMed ID: 10783837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparative scanning electron microscopy study between the effect of an ultrasonic scaler, reciprocating handpiece, and combined approach on the root surface topography in subgingival debridement.
Dassatti L; Manicone PF; Lauricella S; Pastorino R; Filetici P; Nicoletti F; D'Addona A
Clin Exp Dent Res; 2020 Aug; 6(4):470-477. PubMed ID: 32573120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Root surface smoothness or roughness following open debridement. An in vivo study.
Schlageter L; Rateitschak-Plüss EM; Schwarz JP
J Clin Periodontol; 1996 May; 23(5):460-4. PubMed ID: 8783052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments--an in vitro profilometric and SEM study.
Singh S; Uppoor A; Nayak D
J Appl Oral Sci; 2012 Feb; 20(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 22437673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of the effects of various periodontal rotary instruments on surface characteristics of root surface.
Kishida M; Sato S; Ito K
J Oral Sci; 2004 Mar; 46(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 15141717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of a new ultrasonic scaler on fibroblast attachment to root surfaces: a scanning electron microscopy analysis.
Kishida M; Sato S; Ito K
J Periodontal Res; 2004 Apr; 39(2):111-9. PubMed ID: 15009519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. In vitro evaluation of surface roughness, adhesion of periodontal ligament fibroblasts, and Streptococcus gordonii following root instrumentation with Gracey curettes and subsequent polishing with diamond-coated curettes.
Eick S; Bender P; Flury S; Lussi A; Sculean A
Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Mar; 17(2):397-404. PubMed ID: 22526889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of root surface instrumentation using manual, ultrasonic and rotary instruments: an in vitro study using scanning electron microscopy.
Marda P; Prakash S; Devaraj CG; Vastardis S
Indian J Dent Res; 2012; 23(2):164-70. PubMed ID: 22945704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Subgingival debridement with a teflon-coated sonic scaler insert in comparison to conventional instruments and assessment of substance removal on extracted teeth.
Rühling A; Bernhardt O; Kocher T
Quintessence Int; 2005 Jun; 36(6):446-52. PubMed ID: 15954250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An in vitro comparative study of a reciprocating scaler for root surface debridement.
Lee A; Heasman PA; Kelly PJ
J Dent; 1996; 24(1-2):81-6. PubMed ID: 8636498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Preservation of root cementum: a comparative evaluation of power-driven versus hand instruments.
Bozbay E; Dominici F; Gokbuget AY; Cintan S; Guida L; Aydin MS; Mariotti A; Pilloni A
Int J Dent Hyg; 2018 May; 16(2):202-209. PubMed ID: 27860247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparative effectiveness of hand and ultrasonic instrumentations in root surface planing in vitro.
Khosravi M; Bahrami ZS; Atabaki MS; Shokrgozar MA; Shokri F
J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Mar; 31(3):160-5. PubMed ID: 15016018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
