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 *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36465763)

  • 1. Effects on the Titanium Implant Surface by Different Hygiene Instrumentations: A Narrative Review.
    Yen Nee W; Raja Awang RA; Hassan A
    Cureus; 2022 Oct; 14(10):e30884. PubMed ID: 36465763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of ultrasonic scaler tips and toothbrush on titanium disc surfaces evaluated with confocal microscopy.
    Park JB; Kim N; Ko Y
    J Craniofac Surg; 2012 Sep; 23(5):1552-8. PubMed ID: 22976659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Review of Bacterial Colonization on Dental Implants With Various Hygiene Instruments.
    Chen A; Ghaffar H; Taib H; Hassan A
    Cureus; 2023 Oct; 15(10):e47483. PubMed ID: 38021779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bacterial adhesion on smooth and rough titanium surfaces after treatment with different instruments.
    Duarte PM; Reis AF; de Freitas PM; Ota-Tsuzuki C
    J Periodontol; 2009 Nov; 80(11):1824-32. PubMed ID: 19905952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An in vitro study of the treatment of implant surfaces with different instruments.
    Mengel R; Buns CE; Mengel C; Flores-de-Jacoby L
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1998; 13(1):91-6. PubMed ID: 9509785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effects of mechanical instruments on contaminated titanium dental implant surfaces: a systematic review.
    Louropoulou A; Slot DE; Van der Weijden F
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2014 Oct; 25(10):1149-60. PubMed ID: 23834327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparative evaluation of roughness of titanium surfaces treated by different hygiene instruments.
    Unursaikhan O; Lee JS; Cha JK; Park JC; Jung UW; Kim CS; Cho KS; Choi SH
    J Periodontal Implant Sci; 2012 Jun; 42(3):88-94. PubMed ID: 22803010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Titanium surface alterations following the use of different mechanical instruments: a systematic review.
    Louropoulou A; Slot DE; Van der Weijden FA
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2012 Jun; 23(6):643-658. PubMed ID: 21564303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effect of piezoelectric ultrasonic instrumentation on titanium discs: a microscopy and trace elemental analysis in vitro study.
    Tawse-Smith A; Atieh MA; Tompkins G; Duncan WJ; Reid MR; Stirling CH
    Int J Dent Hyg; 2016 Aug; 14(3):191-201. PubMed ID: 26094557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Cell Attachment Following Instrumentation with Titanium and Plastic Instruments, Diode Laser, and Titanium Brush on Titanium, Titanium-Zirconium, and Zirconia Surfaces.
    Lang MS; Cerutis DR; Miyamoto T; Nunn ME
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2016; 31(4):799-806. PubMed ID: 27447145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The Impact of Mechanical Debridement Techniques on Titanium Implant Surfaces: A Comparison of Sandblasted, Acid-Etched, and Femtosecond Laser-Treated Surfaces.
    Eun SM; Son K; Hwang SM; Son YT; Kim YG; Suh JY; Hwang JH; Kwon SM; Lee JH; Kim HD; Lee KB; Lee JM
    J Funct Biomater; 2023 Oct; 14(10):. PubMed ID: 37888167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effect of five mechanical instrumentation protocols on implant surface topography and roughness: A scanning electron microscope and confocal laser scanning microscope analysis.
    Cha JK; Paeng K; Jung UW; Choi SH; Sanz M; Sanz-Martín I
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2019 Jun; 30(6):578-587. PubMed ID: 31022305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [In vitro effects on rough implant surfaces of different instrumentations used in the surgical therapy of peri-implantitis].
    Espedito Di Lauro A; Morgese F; Squillace A; Ramaglia L
    Minerva Stomatol; 2003; 52(1-2):1-7. PubMed ID: 12686908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Treatment with various ultrasonic scaler tips affects efficiency of brushing of SLA titanium discs.
    Park JB; Jang YJ; Choi BK; Kim KK; Ko Y
    J Craniofac Surg; 2013 Mar; 24(2):e119-23. PubMed ID: 23524804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of plastic-covered ultrasonic scalers on titanium implant surfaces.
    Mann M; Parmar D; Walmsley AD; Lea SC
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2012 Jan; 23(1):76-82. PubMed ID: 21488970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effects of titanium brush on machined and sand-blasted/acid-etched titanium disc using confocal microscopy and contact profilometry.
    Park JB; Jeon Y; Ko Y
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2015 Feb; 26(2):130-6. PubMed ID: 24299063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Maintenance of implants: an in vitro study of titanium implant surface modifications subsequent to the application of different prophylaxis procedures.
    Matarasso S; Quaremba G; Coraggio F; Vaia E; Cafiero C; Lang NP
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 1996 Mar; 7(1):64-72. PubMed ID: 9002824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effects of scaling a titanium implant surface with metal and plastic instruments: an in vitro study.
    Fox SC; Moriarty JD; Kusy RP
    J Periodontol; 1990 Aug; 61(8):485-90. PubMed ID: 2202807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Profilometric and standard error of the mean analysis of rough implant surfaces treated with different instrumentations.
    Ramaglia L; di Lauro AE; Morgese F; Squillace A
    Implant Dent; 2006 Mar; 15(1):77-82. PubMed ID: 16569965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Influence of eight debridement techniques on three different titanium surfaces: A laboratory study.
    Tran C; Khan A; Meredith N; Walsh LJ
    Int J Dent Hyg; 2023 Feb; 21(1):238-250. PubMed ID: 35943293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.