158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34393130)
1. 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]
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. 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]
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. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Comparative Evaluation of the Amount of Gingival Displacement Using Three Recent Gingival Retraction Systems -
Qureshi SM; Anasane NS; Kakade D
Contemp Clin Dent; 2020; 11(1):28-33. PubMed ID: 33110305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Comparative clinical efficacy evaluation of three gingival displacement systems.
Shrivastava KJ; Bhoyar A; Agarwal S; Shrivastava S; Parlani S; Murthy V
J Nat Sci Biol Med; 2015 Aug; 6(Suppl 1):S53-7. PubMed ID: 26604620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of retraction materials on gingival health: A histopathological study.
Phatale S; Marawar PP; Byakod G; Lagdive SB; Kalburge JV
J Indian Soc Periodontol; 2010 Jan; 14(1):35-9. PubMed ID: 20922077
[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. Effects of Gingival Retraction Paste and Subsequent Cleaning with Hydrogen Peroxide on the Polymerization of Three Elastomeric Impression Materials: An In Vitro Study.
Abduljabbar TS; Al Amri MD; Al Rifaiy MQ; Al-Sowygh ZH; Vohra FA; Balous MA; Alqarni AS; Alotaibi AO
J Prosthodont; 2019 Jul; 28(6):709-714. PubMed ID: 28960658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparative evaluation of three gingival displacement materials for efficacy in tissue management and dimensional accuracy.
Gajbhiye V; Banerjee R; Jaiswal P; Chandak A; Radke U
J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2019; 19(2):173-179. PubMed ID: 31040552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
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. 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]
19. Comparative evaluation of three noninvasive gingival displacement systems: An
Thimmappa M; Bhatia M; Somani P; Kumar DRV
J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2018; 18(2):122-130. PubMed ID: 29692565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
