169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29807958)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Evaluation of efficacy of different gingival displacement materials on gingival sulcus width.
Prasanna GS; Reddy K; Kumar RK; Shivaprakash S
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2013 Mar; 14(2):217-21. PubMed ID: 23811648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Effect of gingival displacement cord and cordless systems on the closure, displacement, and inflammation of the gingival crevice.
Chandra S; Singh A; Gupta KK; Chandra C; Arora V
J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Feb; 115(2):177-82. PubMed ID: 26443067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
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. A Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Gingival Retraction Using Polyvinyl Siloxane Foam Retraction System, Vinyl Polysiloxane Paste Retraction System, and Copper Wire Reinforced Retraction Cord in Endodontically Treated Teeth: An
Mehta S; Virani H; Memon S; Nirmal N
Contemp Clin Dent; 2019; 10(3):428-432. PubMed ID: 32308315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Comparative evaluation of three gingival displacement systems: an in-vivo study.
Aldhuwayhi S
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci; 2023 Sep; 27(17):8019-8025. PubMed ID: 37750631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Preimpression troughing with the diode laser: A preliminary study.
Stuffken M; Vahidi F
J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Apr; 115(4):441-6. PubMed ID: 26723098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Three-dimensional model analysis of the gingival sulcus width from different retraction time].
Zhang Jj; Liu Yh; Lv Pj; Zhao Yj
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2011 Feb; 43(1):73-6. PubMed ID: 21321624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Gingival displacement using diode laser or retraction cords: A comparative clinical study.
Melilli D; Mauceri R; Albanese A; Matranga D; Pizzo G
Am J Dent; 2018 Jun; 31(3):131-134. PubMed ID: 30028930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. [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]
19. 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]
20. Clinical evaluation of different gingival retraction cords.
Kumbuloglu O; User A; Toksavul S; Boyacioglu H
Quintessence Int; 2007 Feb; 38(2):e92-8. PubMed ID: 17510720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
