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 *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39200094)

  • 1. A Comparative Analysis of Enamel Surface Roughness Following Various Interproximal Reduction Techniques: An Examination Using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Atomic Force Microscopy.
    Serbanoiu DC; Vartolomei AC; Ghiga DV; Moldovan M; Sarosi C; Petean I; Boileau MJ; Pacurar M
    Biomedicines; 2024 Jul; 12(8):. PubMed ID: 39200094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Atomic force microscopy analysis of enamel nanotopography after interproximal reduction.
    Meredith L; Farella M; Lowrey S; Cannon RD; Mei L
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2017 Apr; 151(4):750-757. PubMed ID: 28364899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparative Evaluation of Dental Enamel Microhardness Following Various Methods of Interproximal Reduction: A Vickers Hardness Tester Investigation.
    Serbanoiu DC; Vartolomei AC; Ghiga DV; Pop SI; Panainte I; Moldovan M; Sarosi C; Petean I; Boileau MJ; Pacurar M
    Biomedicines; 2024 May; 12(5):. PubMed ID: 38791094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of the enamel nano-topography influenced by different techniques of interproximal reduction: An atomic force microscopic study.
    Butrus DJ; Chawshli OF
    J Orthod; 2023 Jun; 50(2):196-204. PubMed ID: 36464894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. In vivo enamel stripping: A macroscopic and microscopic analytical study.
    Kaaouara Y; Mohind HB; Azaroual MF; Zaoui F; Bahije L; Benyahia H
    Int Orthod; 2019 Jun; 17(2):235-242. PubMed ID: 30981677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [The enamel surface quality after interproximal stripping--a scanning electron microscopic assessment of different polishing procedures].
    Hein C; Jost-Brinkmann PG; Schillai G
    Fortschr Kieferorthop; 1990 Dec; 51(6):327-35. PubMed ID: 2286346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Depth of acid penetration and enamel surface roughness associated with different methods of interproximal enamel reduction.
    Danesh G; Podstawa PKK; Schwartz CE; Kirschneck C; Bizhang M; Arnold WH
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(3):e0229595. PubMed ID: 32119700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A scanning electron microscopy comparison of enamel polishing methods after air-rotor stripping.
    Piacentini C; Sfondrini G
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1996 Jan; 109(1):57-63. PubMed ID: 8540483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of the abrasive properties of two different systems for interproximal enamel reduction: oscillating versus manual strips.
    Gazzani F; Lione R; Pavoni C; Mampieri G; Cozza P
    BMC Oral Health; 2019 Nov; 19(1):247. PubMed ID: 31727047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison between different interdental stripping methods and evaluation of abrasive strips: SEM analysis.
    Grippaudo C; Cancellieri D; Grecolini ME; Deli R
    Prog Orthod; 2010; 11(2):127-37. PubMed ID: 20974449
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effects of various debonding and adhesive clearance methods on enamel surface: an in vitro study.
    Fan XC; Chen L; Huang XF
    BMC Oral Health; 2017 Feb; 17(1):58. PubMed ID: 28241812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Efficiency of powered systems for interproximal enamel reduction (IER) and enamel roughness before and after polishing-an in vitro study.
    Zingler S; Sommer A; Sen S; Saure D; Langer J; Guillon O; Lux CJ
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Jun; 20(5):933-42. PubMed ID: 26419674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Enamel surfaces following interproximal reduction with different methods.
    Danesh G; Hellak A; Lippold C; Ziebura T; Schafer E
    Angle Orthod; 2007 Nov; 77(6):1004-10. PubMed ID: 18004908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of enamel after various post-stripping polishing methods: an in vitro study.
    Gupta P; Gupta N; Patel N; Gupta R; Sandhu GS; Naik C
    Aust Orthod J; 2012 Nov; 28(2):240-4. PubMed ID: 23304974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Orthodontic microabrasive reproximation.
    Joseph VP; Rossouw PE; Basson NJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1992 Oct; 102(4):351-9. PubMed ID: 1333728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluation of Enamel Surfaces after Different Techniques of Interproximal Enamel Reduction.
    Silvestrini Biavati F; Schiaffino V; Signore A; De Angelis N; Lanteri V; Ugolini A
    J Funct Biomater; 2023 Feb; 14(2):. PubMed ID: 36826909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Experimental validation of mechanical oscillating IPR system.
    Cretella Lombardo E; Loberto S; Balboni A; DE Razza FC; Fanelli S; Pavoni C
    Minerva Dent Oral Sci; 2024 Feb; 73(1):7-13. PubMed ID: 37768687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Enamel demineralization after different methods of interproximal polishing.
    Hellak AF; Riepe EM; Seubert A; Korbmacher-Steiner HM
    Clin Oral Investig; 2015 Nov; 19(8):1965-72. PubMed ID: 25689983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Enamel surface roughness after interproximal enamel reduction with different methods in vitro].
    Zhao BJ; Wu HM
    Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2011 Feb; 20(1):51-4. PubMed ID: 21451899
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Superficial roughness on composite surface, composite-enamel and composite-dentin junctions after different finishing and polishing procedures. Part II: roughness with diamond finishing and differences between enamel composite vs body composite.
    Ferraris F; Conti A
    Int J Esthet Dent; 2014; 9(2):184-204. PubMed ID: 24765626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.