These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33088060)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Evaluation of new gingival retraction agents.
    Bowles WH; Tardy SJ; Vahadi A
    J Dent Res; 1991 Nov; 70(11):1447-9. PubMed ID: 1960257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. The use of retraction paste to simplify impression and cementation of ceramic veneers and crowns: 3-year follow-up report.
    Andreiuolo RF; Abreu JLB; Hirata R
    Quintessence Int; 2019; 50(8):604-610. PubMed ID: 31286117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions.
    Ceyhan JA; Johnson GH; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Aug; 90(2):143-9. PubMed ID: 12886207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Efficacy of two gingival retraction systems on lateral gingival displacement: A prospective clinical study.
    Anupam P; Namratha N; Vibha S; Anandakrishna GN; Shally K; Singh A
    J Oral Biol Craniofac Res; 2013; 3(2):68-72. PubMed ID: 25737887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Laser gingival retraction: a quantitative assessment.
    Krishna Ch V; Gupta N; Reddy KM; Sekhar NC; Aditya V; Reddy GV
    J Clin Diagn Res; 2013 Aug; 7(8):1787-8. PubMed ID: 24086914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Gender Based Comparison of Gingival Zenith Esthetics.
    Humagain M; Rokaya D; Srii R; Dixit S; Kafle D
    Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ); 2016; 14(54):148-152. PubMed ID: 28166072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Interproximal distance analysis of stereolithographic casts made by CAD-CAM technology: An in vitro study.
    Hoffman M; Cho SH; Bansal NK
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Nov; 118(5):624-630. PubMed ID: 28477918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Using double-poured alginate impressions to fabricate bleaching trays.
    Haywood VB; Powe A
    Oper Dent; 1998; 23(3):128-31. PubMed ID: 9656923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Polymerization time compatibility index of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials with conventional and experimental gingival margin displacement agents.
    Nowakowska D; Raszewski Z; Saczko J; Kulbacka J; Więckiewicz W
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Aug; 112(2):168-75. PubMed ID: 24461950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Influence of the Gingival Condition on the Performance of Different Gingival Displacement Methods-A Randomized Clinical Study.
    Kuhn K; Rudolph H; Zügel D; Just BA; Hrusa M; Martin T; Schnutenhaus S; Dreyhaupt J; Luthardt RG
    J Clin Med; 2021 Jun; 10(13):. PubMed ID: 34206670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effects of pre-soaked retraction cords on the microcirculation of the human gingival margin.
    Fazekas A; Csempesz F; Csabai Z; Vág J
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):343-8. PubMed ID: 12120770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Quality of impressions after use of the Magic FoamCord gingival retraction system--a clinical study of 269 abutment teeth.
    Beier US; Kranewitter R; Dumfahrt H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2009; 22(2):143-7. PubMed ID: 19418859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Evaluation of gingival inflammation related to different retraction agents].
    Sun XW; Sun GL; Xiao LJ
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2008 Feb; 26(1):53-5. PubMed ID: 18357884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.