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 *

155 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]
    of 8.