176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32442353)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Influence of gingival retraction paste versus cord on periodontal health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Wang Y; Fan F; Li X; Zhou Q; He B; Huang X; Huang S; Ma J
Quintessence Int; 2019; 50(3):234-244. PubMed ID: 30773575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Evaluation of Gingival Displacement with Aluminum Chloride and Naphazoline Hydrochloride: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
de Carvalho WF; Junior LCV; Junior HFB; Suguiura TPDS; Previdelli ITS; Sábio S
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2021 Feb; 29(1):47-53. PubMed ID: 33026719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
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. 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]
13. 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]
14. To cord or not to cord? That is still a question.
Veitz-Keenan A; Keenan JR
Evid Based Dent; 2017 Mar; 18(1):21-22. PubMed ID: 28338036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Fluid absorbency of retraction cords after soaking in aluminum chloride solution.
Runyan DA; Reddy TG; Shimoda LM
J Prosthet Dent; 1988 Dec; 60(6):676-8. PubMed ID: 3060598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
