127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36329598)
1. An objective comparison of two pulse oximetry sensors with different adhesive systems on healthy human volunteers based on biophysical assessments.
Grove G; Houser T; Dove J; Moody D
Skin Res Technol; 2023 Jan; 29(1):e13212. PubMed ID: 36329598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Adhesives for medical application - Peel strength testing and evaluation of biophysical skin response.
Mbithi F; Worsley PR
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2023 Dec; 148():106168. PubMed ID: 37847959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A randomized and controlled comparison of gentleness of 2 medical adhesive tapes in healthy human subjects.
Grove GL; Zerweck CR; Houser TP; Smith GE; Koski NI
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 2013; 40(1):51-9. PubMed ID: 23202590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of Medical Tape Performance Using Skin Response Quantitative Measurements on Healthy Volunteers.
Turnbull MJ; Grigsby I; Unertl K; Sokol K; Nordby T; Liu C; Bailey A; Spiewak B; Smith G; McNulty AK
Cureus; 2024 Mar; 16(3):e56548. PubMed ID: 38646282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluating the Irritant Factors of Silicone and Hydrocolloid Skin Contact Adhesives Using Trans-Epidermal Water Loss, Protein Stripping, Erythema, and Ease of Removal.
Dyson E; Sikkink S; Nocita D; Twigg P; Westgate G; Swift T
ACS Appl Bio Mater; 2024 Jan; 7(1):284-296. PubMed ID: 38150300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Skin changes induced by a zinc oxide dressing compared with a hydrocolloid dressing in healthy individuals.
Nielsen LF; Blume N; Romme T; Samuelsen P; Everland H; Ifversen P; Karlsmark T
Skin Res Technol; 2005 May; 11(2):140-51. PubMed ID: 15807813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Randomized comparison of a silicone tape and a paper tape for gentleness in healthy children.
Grove GL; Zerweck CR; Ekholm BP; Smith GE; Koski NI
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 2014; 41(1):40-8. PubMed ID: 24240641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of adhesive retention of maxillofacial prostheses. Part 2: Time and reapplication effects.
Kiat-Amnuay S; Gettleman L; Khan Z; Goldsmith LJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2001 May; 85(5):438-41. PubMed ID: 11357068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Not Removing the Glossy White Cover from Adhesive INVOS Neonatal Sensors Affects the Oxygenation Measurement.
Hansen ML; Ostojic D; Kleiser S; Greisen G; Wolf M
Adv Exp Med Biol; 2021; 1269():353-357. PubMed ID: 33966242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. An evaluation of the skin stripping of wound dressing adhesives.
Waring M; Bielfeldt S; Mätzold K; Wilhelm KP; Butcher M
J Wound Care; 2011 Sep; 20(9):412, 414, 416-22. PubMed ID: 22068140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Disruption of barrier function in neonatal skin associated with adhesive removal.
Lund CH; Nonato LB; Kuller JM; Franck LS; Cullander C; Durand DJ
J Pediatr; 1997 Sep; 131(3):367-72. PubMed ID: 9329411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of multi-adhesive layering on retention of extraoral maxillofacial silicone prostheses in vivo.
Kiat-Amnuay S; Gettleman L; Goldsmith LJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2004 Sep; 92(3):294-8. PubMed ID: 15343167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The effect of adhesive dressing edges on cutaneous irritancy and skin barrier function.
Dykes PJ
J Wound Care; 2007 Mar; 16(3):97-100. PubMed ID: 17385583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of adhesive dressings on the stratum corneum of the skin.
Dykes PJ; Heggie R; Hill SA
J Wound Care; 2001 Feb; 10(2):7-10. PubMed ID: 12964220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A temperature-sensitive, high-adhesion medical tape: a comparative, single-blind clinical trial.
Swanson S; Luu V; Smith R; Gross A; Tudor J; MacKenzie D; Taroc AM; Gow KW; Nelson LY; Seibel EJ
J Wound Care; 2023 Oct; 32(10):665-675. PubMed ID: 37830828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Measuring epidermal effects of ostomy skin barriers.
Grove G; Houser T; Sibbald G; Salvadalena G
Skin Res Technol; 2019 Mar; 25(2):179-186. PubMed ID: 30387538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Preliminary studies on the relationship among peel force, quantitative measures of skin damage and subjective discomfort.
Murahata RI; Taylor MG; Damia J; Grove GL
Skin Res Technol; 2008 Nov; 14(4):478-83. PubMed ID: 18937785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Biophysical effects of repetitive removal of adhesive dressings on peri-ulcer skin.
Zillmer R; Agren MS; Gottrup F; Karlsmark T
J Wound Care; 2006 May; 15(5):187-91. PubMed ID: 16711170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The link between the peel force of adhesive dressings and subjective discomfort in volunteer subjects.
Dykes PJ; Heggie R
J Wound Care; 2003 Jul; 12(7):260-2. PubMed ID: 12894697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Properties of pressure-sensitive adhesive tapes with soft adhesives to human skin and their mechanism.
Tokumura F; Homma T; Tomiya T; Kobayashi Y; Matsuda T
Skin Res Technol; 2007 May; 13(2):211-6. PubMed ID: 17374065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
