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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34041063)

  • 1. Comparative assessment of conventional periodontal probes and CEJ handpiece of electronic probes in the diagnosis and primary care of periodontal disease.
    Bareja H; Bansal M; Naveen Kumar PG
    J Family Med Prim Care; 2021 Feb; 10(2):692-698. PubMed ID: 34041063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of probing attachment levels using a CEJ probe versus traditional probes.
    Karpinia K; Magnusson I; Gibbs C; Yang MC
    J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Mar; 31(3):173-6. PubMed ID: 15016020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Measurement of clinical attachment levels using a constant-force periodontal probe modified to detect the cemento-enamel junction.
    Preshaw PM; Kupp L; Hefti AF; Mariotti A
    J Clin Periodontol; 1999 Jul; 26(7):434-40. PubMed ID: 10412847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reproducibility of Manual Periodontal Probing Following a Comprehensive Standardization and Calibration Training Program.
    Fitzgerald BP; Hawley CE; Harrold CQ; Garrett JS; Polson AM; Rams TE
    J Oral Biol (Northborough); 2022 Jun; 8(1):. PubMed ID: 36225716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of measurement variability in subjects with moderate periodontitis using a conventional and constant force periodontal probe.
    Osborn JB; Stoltenberg JL; Huso BA; Aeppli DM; Pihlstrom BL
    J Periodontol; 1992 Apr; 63(4):283-9. PubMed ID: 1573541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of probing attachment levels using a new computerized cemento-enamel junction probe.
    Deepa R; Prakash S
    J Indian Soc Periodontol; 2012 Jan; 16(1):74-9. PubMed ID: 22654322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Sources of error for periodontal probing measurements.
    Grossi SG; Dunford RG; Ho A; Koch G; Machtei EE; Genco RJ
    J Periodontal Res; 1996 Jul; 31(5):330-6. PubMed ID: 8858537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparative evaluation of accuracy of periodontal probing depth and attachment levels using a Florida probe versus traditional probes.
    Gupta N; Rath SK; Lohra P
    Med J Armed Forces India; 2015 Oct; 71(4):352-8. PubMed ID: 26663963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Intra - and inter-examiner reproducibility in constant force probing.
    Wang SF; Leknes KN; Zimmerman GJ; Sigurdsson TJ; Wikesjö UM; Selvig KA
    J Clin Periodontol; 1995 Dec; 22(12):918-22. PubMed ID: 8613559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy and reproducibility of two manual periodontal probes. An in vitro study.
    Buduneli E; Aksoy O; Köse T; Atilla G
    J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Oct; 31(10):815-9. PubMed ID: 15367182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Description and clinical evaluation of a new computerized periodontal probe--the Florida probe.
    Gibbs CH; Hirschfeld JW; Lee JG; Low SB; Magnusson I; Thousand RR; Yerneni P; Clark WB
    J Clin Periodontol; 1988 Feb; 15(2):137-44. PubMed ID: 3162246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of measurement variability using a standard and constant force periodontal probe.
    Osborn J; Stoltenberg J; Huso B; Aeppli D; Pihlstrom B
    J Periodontol; 1990 Aug; 61(8):497-503. PubMed ID: 2391627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical evaluation of electronic and manual constant force probes.
    Khocht A; Chang KM
    J Periodontol; 1998 Jan; 69(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 9527557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reproducibility of clinical attachment level and probing depth of a manual probe and a computerized electronic probe.
    Alves Rde V; Machion L; Andia DC; Casati MZ; Sallum AW; Sallum EA
    J Int Acad Periodontol; 2005 Jan; 7(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 15736893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Periodontal probe precision using 4 different periodontal probes.
    Mayfield L; Bratthall G; Attström R
    J Clin Periodontol; 1996 Feb; 23(2):76-82. PubMed ID: 8849842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical Evaluation of a New Electronic Periodontal Probe: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
    Laugisch O; Auschill TM; Heumann C; Sculean A; Arweiler NB
    Diagnostics (Basel); 2021 Dec; 12(1):. PubMed ID: 35054209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Manual and electronic probing of the periodontal attachment level in untreated periodontitis: a systematic review.
    Silva-Boghossian CM; Amaral CS; Maia LC; Luiz RR; Colombo AP
    J Dent; 2008 Aug; 36(8):651-7. PubMed ID: 18534736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparative evaluation of probing depth and clinical attachment level using a manual probe and Florida probe.
    Kour A; Kumar A; Puri K; Khatri M; Bansal M; Gupta G
    J Indian Soc Periodontol; 2016; 20(3):299-306. PubMed ID: 27563204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of enamel matrix derivative as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal therapy.
    Gutierrez MA; Mellonig JT; Cochran DL
    J Clin Periodontol; 2003 Aug; 30(8):739-45. PubMed ID: 12887343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.