118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29892528)
1. To determine the efficacy of ultrasonography in the evaluation of bone fill at the regenerate site for mandibular distraction osteogenesis over clinical and radiographic assessment- An in vivo prospective study.
Andrade N; Aggrawal N; Jadhav G; Sahu V; Mathai PC
J Oral Biol Craniofac Res; 2018; 8(2):89-93. PubMed ID: 29892528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Use of ultrasound to assess healing of a mandibular distraction wound.
Thurmüller P; Troulis M; O'Neill MJ; Kaban LB
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2002 Sep; 60(9):1038-44. PubMed ID: 12215991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Ultrasound: assessment of the distraction osteogenesis wound in patients undergoing mandibular lengthening.
Troulis MJ; Coppe C; O'Neill MJ; Kaban LB
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2003 Oct; 61(10):1144-9. PubMed ID: 14586848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparative evaluation of the mandibular distraction zone using ultrasonography and conventional radiography.
Issar Y; Sahoo NK; Sinha R; Satija L; Chattopadhyay PK
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2014 May; 43(5):587-94. PubMed ID: 24393569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Continuous versus discontinuous distraction: evaluation of bone regenerate following various rhythms of distraction.
Djasim UM; Wolvius EB; Bos JA; van Neck HW; van der Wal KG
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2009 Apr; 67(4):818-26. PubMed ID: 19304040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Distraction osteogenesis of the porcine mandible: histomorphometric evaluation of bone.
Glowacki J; Shusterman EM; Troulis M; Holmes R; Perrott D; Kaban LB
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2004 Feb; 113(2):566-73. PubMed ID: 14758219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Assessment of Mandibular Distraction Regenerate Using Ultrasonography and Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Clinical Study.
Dabas J; Mohanty S; Chaudhary Z; Rani A
Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr; 2016 Mar; 9(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 26889351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Correlation of biomechanical stiffness with plain radiographic and ultrasound data in an experimental mandibular distraction wound.
Kaban LB; Thurmüller P; Troulis MJ; Glowacki J; Wahl D; Linke B; Rahn B; Perrott DH
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2003 Jun; 32(3):296-304. PubMed ID: 12767878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Single versus triple daily activation of the distractor: no significant effects of frequency of distraction on bone regenerate quantity and architecture.
Djasim UM; Wolvius EB; Van Neck JW; Van Wamel A; Weinans H; Van Der Wal KGH
J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2008 Apr; 36(3):143-151. PubMed ID: 18359239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of distracted mandibular bone using computed tomography scan and ultrasonography: technical note.
Selim H; Elbargothy N; Nabil Y; El-Hakim I
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2009 Jul; 38(5):274-80. PubMed ID: 19474254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessment of bone formation in a porcine mandibular distraction wound by computed tomography.
Zimmermann CE; Harris G; Thurmüller P; Troulis MJ; Perrott DH; Rahn B; Kaban LB
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2004 Sep; 33(6):569-74. PubMed ID: 15308257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB augmentation of new-bone formation in a rat model of distraction osteogenesis.
Moore DC; Ehrlich MG; McAllister SC; Machan JT; Hart CE; Voigt C; Lesieur-Brooks AM; Weber EW
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2009 Aug; 91(8):1973-84. PubMed ID: 19651957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Ultrasound can predict regenerate stiffness in distraction osteogenesis.
Bail HJ; Kolbeck S; Krummrey G; Weiler A; Windhagen HJ; Hennies K; Raun K; Raschke MJ
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2002 Nov; (404):362-7. PubMed ID: 12439281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Segmental mandibular regeneration by distraction osteogenesis. An experimental study.
Costantino PD; Shybut G; Friedman CD; Pelzer HJ; Masini M; Shindo ML; Sisson GA
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 1990 May; 116(5):535-45. PubMed ID: 2328111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Histomorphometric analysis of the porcine mandibular distraction wound.
Lawler ME; Tayebaty FT; Williams WB; Troulis MJ; Kaban LB
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2010 Jul; 68(7):1543-54. PubMed ID: 20561467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Rat mandibular distraction osteogenesis: latency, rate, and rhythm determine the adaptive response.
Paccione MF; Mehrara BJ; Warren SM; Greenwald JA; Spector JA; Luchs JS; Longaker MT
J Craniofac Surg; 2001 Mar; 12(2):175-82. PubMed ID: 11314629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. "Pumping the regenerate": an evaluation of oscillating distraction osteogenesis in the rodent mandible.
Greenwald JA; Luchs JS; Mehrara BJ; Spector JA; Mackool RJ; McCarthy JG; Longaker MT
Ann Plast Surg; 2000 May; 44(5):516-21. PubMed ID: 10805303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effects of latency on the quality and quantity of bone produced by dentoalveolar distraction osteogenesis.
Moore C; Campbell PM; Dechow PC; Ellis ML; Buschang PH
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Oct; 140(4):470-8. PubMed ID: 21967933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Molding of the regenerate in mandibular distraction: Part 1: Laboratory study.
Luchs JS; Stelnicki EJ; Rowe NM; Naijher NS; Grayson BH; McCarthy JG
J Craniofac Surg; 2002 Mar; 13(2):205-11. PubMed ID: 12000874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Low-level laser effect on mandibular distraction osteogenesis.
Miloro M; Miller JJ; Stoner JA
J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2007 Feb; 65(2):168-76. PubMed ID: 17236917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
