182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35802190)
21. Evaluation of peri-implant buccal bone by computed tomography: an experimental study.
González-Martín O; Oteo C; Ortega R; Alandez J; Sanz M; Veltri M
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Aug; 27(8):950-5. PubMed ID: 26178780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT versus intraoral imaging for assessment of peri-implant bone defects.
Song D; Shujaat S; de Faria Vasconcelos K; Huang Y; Politis C; Lambrichts I; Jacobs R
BMC Med Imaging; 2021 Feb; 21(1):23. PubMed ID: 33568085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review.
Fokas G; Vaughn VM; Scarfe WC; Bornstein MM
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():393-415. PubMed ID: 30328204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Ultrasonography for noninvasive and real-time evaluation of peri-implant tissue dimensions.
Chan HL; Sinjab K; Li J; Chen Z; Wang HL; Kripfgans OD
J Clin Periodontol; 2018 Aug; 45(8):986-995. PubMed ID: 29757464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Measurement of Crestal Cortical Bone Thickness at Implant Site: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study.
Gupta A; Rathee S; Agarwal J; Pachar RB
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2017 Sep; 18(9):785-789. PubMed ID: 28874642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Effect of field of view in the detection of chemically created peri-implant bone defects in bovine ribs using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study.
Pinheiro LR; Gaia BF; Oliveira de Sales MA; Umetsubo OS; Santos Junior O; Cavalcanti MG
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2015 Jul; 120(1):69-77. PubMed ID: 26093682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Evaluation of Pre- and Post-loading Peri-implant Crestal Bone Levels Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: An
Trivedi A; Trivedi S; Narang H; Sarkar P; Sehdev B; Pendyala G; Gill P
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2022 Jan; 23(1):79-82. PubMed ID: 35656662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Assessing the Accuracy of Cone-Beam Computerized Tomography in Measuring Thinning Oral and Buccal Bone.
Raskó Z; Nagy L; Radnai M; Piffkó J; Baráth Z
J Oral Implantol; 2016 Jun; 42(3):311-4. PubMed ID: 26645480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Diagnostic Accuracy of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Identifying Peri-implantitis-Like Bone Defects Ex Vivo.
Insua A; Gañán Y; Macías Y; Garcia JA; Rakic M; Monje A
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2021; 41(6):e223-e231. PubMed ID: 34818387
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Higher Resolution in Cone Beam Computed Tomography Is Accompanied by Improved Bone Detection in Peri-implant Bone Despite Metal Artifact Presence.
Kerkfeld V; Meyer U
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2018; 33(6):1331-1338. PubMed ID: 30427964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Accuracy of High-Frequency Ultrasound Scanner in Detecting Peri-implant Bone Defects.
Bohner L; Habor D; Gremse F; Tortamano P; Wolfart S; Marotti J
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2019 Mar; 45(3):650-659. PubMed ID: 30593434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Effectiveness of Periapical Radiography Versus Cone Beam Computed Tomography with Different Kilovoltage Settings in the Detection of Chemically Created Peri-implant Bone Defects: An In Vitro Study.
Pinheiro LR; Scarfe WC; de Oliveira Sales MA; Gaia BF; Cortes AR; Gusmão Paraiso Cavalcanti M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2017; 32(4):741-750. PubMed ID: 28708906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography is limited at implant sites with a thin buccal bone: A laboratory study.
Domic D; Bertl K; Ahmad S; Schropp L; Hellén-Halme K; Stavropoulos A
J Periodontol; 2021 Apr; 92(4):592-601. PubMed ID: 32846005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Quantification of bone microstructure in the wrist using cone-beam computed tomography.
Mys K; Stockmans F; Vereecke E; van Lenthe GH
Bone; 2018 Sep; 114():206-214. PubMed ID: 29909060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Misfit detection in implant-supported prostheses of different compositions by periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study.
de-Azevedo-Vaz SL; Araujo-Siqueira C; Carneiro VC; Oliveira ML; Azeredo RA
J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Aug; 126(2):205-213. PubMed ID: 32723499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Effect of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Field of View and Acquisition Frame on the Detection of Chemically Simulated Peri-Implant Bone Loss In Vitro.
Pinheiro LR; Scarfe WC; Augusto de Oliveira Sales M; Gaia BF; Cortes AR; Cavalcanti MG
J Periodontol; 2015 Oct; 86(10):1159-65. PubMed ID: 26156676
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of regenerated buccal bone 5 years after simultaneous implant placement and guided bone regeneration procedures--a randomized, controlled clinical trial.
Jung RE; Benic GI; Scherrer D; Hämmerle CH
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2015; 26(1):28-34. PubMed ID: 24299007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Peri-implant assessment via cone beam computed tomography and digital periapical radiography: an ex vivo study.
Silveira-Neto N; Flores ME; De Carli JP; Costa MD; Matos FS; Paranhos LR; Linden MSS
Clinics (Sao Paulo); 2017 Nov; 72(11):708-713. PubMed ID: 29236918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The Effect of Implant-Induced Artifacts on Interpreting Adjacent Bone Structures on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scans.
Sheridan RA; Chiang YC; Decker AM; Sutthiboonyapan P; Chan HL; Wang HL
Implant Dent; 2018 Feb; 27(1):10-14. PubMed ID: 29095787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Assessment of buccal marginal alveolar peri-implant and periodontal defects using a cone beam CT system with and without the application of metal artefact reduction mode.
Kamburoglu K; Kolsuz E; Murat S; Eren H; Yüksel S; Paksoy CS
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2013; 42(8):20130176. PubMed ID: 23956236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
