164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30722986)
1. Comparison of four cordless gingival displacement systems: A clinical study.
Rayyan MM; Hussien ANM; Sayed NM; Abdallah R; Osman E; El Saad NA; Ramadan S
J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Feb; 121(2):265-270. PubMed ID: 30722986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Comparison of Gingival Retraction Materials Using a New Gingival Sulcus Model.
Dederichs M; Fahmy MD; Kuepper H; Guentsch A
J Prosthodont; 2019 Aug; 28(7):784-789. PubMed ID: 31206914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Efficacy of Four Different Gingival Retraction Systems: An In Vivo Study.
Madaan R; Paliwal J; Sharma V; Meena KK; Dadarwal A; Kumar R
Cureus; 2022 Apr; 14(4):e23923. PubMed ID: 35530916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of pressure generated by cordless gingival displacement materials.
Bennani V; Inger M; Aarts JM
J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Aug; 112(2):163-7. PubMed ID: 24529659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction techniques on the gingival and periodontal health.
Al Hamad KQ; Azar WZ; Alwaeli HA; Said KN
J Clin Periodontol; 2008 Dec; 35(12):1053-8. PubMed ID: 19040582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparison of pressure generated by cordless gingival displacement techniques.
Bennani V; Aarts JM; He LH
J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Jun; 107(6):388-92. PubMed ID: 22633595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Correlation of pressure and displacement during gingival displacement: An in vitro study.
Bennani V; Aarts JM; Schumayer D
J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Mar; 115(3):296-300. PubMed ID: 26548889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A double-blind randomised clinical trial of two techniques for gingival displacement.
Sarmento HR; Leite FR; Dantas RV; Ogliari FA; Demarco FF; Faot F
J Oral Rehabil; 2014 Apr; 41(4):306-13. PubMed ID: 24446590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of gingival displacement methods in terms of periodontal health at crown restorations produced by digital scan: 1-year clinical follow-up.
Ünalan Değirmenci B; Karadağ Naldemir B; Değirmenci A
Lasers Med Sci; 2021 Aug; 36(6):1323-1335. PubMed ID: 33566189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Gingival displacement before impression making: A prospective, comparative randomized clinical trial.
Desclos-Theveniau M; Abgrall H; Bar V; Basle F; Basle D; Dautel MJ; Rubin J; Delanoue F; Lefrançois E; Dautel A; Sérandour AL; Le Guicher G; Colombel H
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Oct; ():. PubMed ID: 37919130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Efficiency of Cordless Versus Cord Techniques of Gingival Retraction: A Systematic Review.
Huang C; Somar M; Li K; Mohadeb JVN
J Prosthodont; 2017 Apr; 26(3):177-185. PubMed ID: 26378615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Efficacy of conventional cord versus cordless techniques for gingival displacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Martins FV; Santana RB; Fonseca EM
J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Jan; 125(1):46-55. PubMed ID: 32008797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Evaluation of gingival displacement, bleeding and ease of application for polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and conventional retraction cord - a clinical trial.
Nasim H; Lone MA; Kumar B; Ahmed N; Farooqui WA; Alsahhaf A; Alresayes S; Vohra F; Abduljabbar T
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci; 2023 Mar; 27(6):2222-2231. PubMed ID: 37013740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
