158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35530916)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Gingival Retraction using Polyvinyl Acetate Strips and Conventional Retraction Cord - An in Vivo Study.
Shivasakthy M; Asharaf Ali S
J Clin Diagn Res; 2013 Oct; 7(10):2368-71. PubMed ID: 24298531
[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. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Gingival Displacement in the Vertical and Horizontal Dimension under the Condition of Mild Gingivitis-A Randomized Clinical Study.
Kuhn K; Zügel D; Korbay VA; Papas T; Schnutenhaus S; Luthardt RG; Dreyhaupt J; Rudolph H
J Clin Med; 2022 Jan; 11(2):. PubMed ID: 35054131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
