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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7891248)

  • 1. Reproducibility of periodontal probing using a conventional manual and an automated force-controlled electronic probe.
    Wang SF; Leknes KN; Zimmerman GJ; Sigurdsson TJ; Wikesjö UM; Selvig KA
    J Periodontol; 1995 Jan; 66(1):38-46. PubMed ID: 7891248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Intra - and inter-examiner reproducibility in constant force probing.
    Wang SF; Leknes KN; Zimmerman GJ; Sigurdsson TJ; Wikesjö UM; Selvig KA
    J Clin Periodontol; 1995 Dec; 22(12):918-22. PubMed ID: 8613559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Reproducibility of clinical attachment level and probing depth of a manual probe and a computerized electronic probe.
    Alves Rde V; Machion L; Andia DC; Casati MZ; Sallum AW; Sallum EA
    J Int Acad Periodontol; 2005 Jan; 7(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 15736893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of two pressure-sensitive periodontal probes and a manual periodontal probe in shallow and deep pockets.
    Rams TE; Slots J
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 1993 Dec; 13(6):520-9. PubMed ID: 8181912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An assessment of the validity of a constant force electronic probe in measuring probing depths.
    Hull PS; Clerehugh V; Ghassemi-Aval A
    J Periodontol; 1995 Oct; 66(10):848-51. PubMed ID: 8537866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Clinical evaluation of a constant force electronic probe.
    Quirynen M; Callens A; van Steenberghe D; Nys M
    J Periodontol; 1993 Jan; 64(1):35-9. PubMed ID: 8426288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Comparative probing with an electronic and a manual periodontal probe].
    Becherer CF; Rateitschak KH; Hefti AF
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 1993; 103(6):715-21. PubMed ID: 8322056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reproducibility of attachment level recordings using an electronic and a conventional probe.
    Villata L; Baelum V
    J Periodontol; 1996 Dec; 67(12):1292-300. PubMed ID: 8997676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reproducibility of automated periodontal probing around teeth and osseointegrated oral implants.
    Christensen MM; Joss A; Lang NP
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 1997 Dec; 8(6):455-64. PubMed ID: 9555204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reproducibility of probing depth measurement using a constant-force electronic probe: analysis of inter- and intraexaminer variability.
    Araujo MW; Hovey KM; Benedek JR; Grossi SG; Dorn J; Wactawski-Wende J; Genco RJ; Trevisan M
    J Periodontol; 2003 Dec; 74(12):1736-40. PubMed ID: 14974813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sources of error for periodontal probing measurements.
    Grossi SG; Dunford RG; Ho A; Koch G; Machtei EE; Genco RJ
    J Periodontal Res; 1996 Jul; 31(5):330-6. PubMed ID: 8858537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Important differences in clinical data from third, second, and first generation periodontal probes.
    Breen HJ; Rogers PA; Lawless HC; Austin JS; Johnson NW
    J Periodontol; 1997 Apr; 68(4):335-45. PubMed ID: 9150038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Site-specific attachment level change detected by physical probing in untreated chronic adult periodontitis: review of studies 1982-1997.
    Breen HJ; Johnson NW; Rogers PA
    J Periodontol; 1999 Mar; 70(3):312-28. PubMed ID: 10225549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A clinical study of an electronic constant force periodontal probe.
    Tupta-Veselicky L; Famili P; Ceravolo FJ; Zullo T
    J Periodontol; 1994 Jun; 65(6):616-22. PubMed ID: 8083795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of two automated periodontal probes and two probes with a conventional readout in periodontal maintenance patients.
    Barendregt DS; Van der Velden U; Timmerman MF; van der Weijden GA
    J Clin Periodontol; 2006 Apr; 33(4):276-82. PubMed ID: 16553636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reproducibility of probing depth measurement by an experimental periodontal probe incorporating optical fiber sensor.
    Ishihata K; Wakabayashi N; Wadachi J; Akizuki T; Izumi Y; Takakuda K; Igarashi Y
    J Periodontol; 2012 Feb; 83(2):222-7. PubMed ID: 21574830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of measurement variability in subjects with moderate periodontitis using a conventional and constant force periodontal probe.
    Osborn JB; Stoltenberg JL; Huso BA; Aeppli DM; Pihlstrom BL
    J Periodontol; 1992 Apr; 63(4):283-9. PubMed ID: 1573541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The influence of gingival health status on periodontal probing measurements. A clinical study in humans.
    Molina GO; Souza SL; Grisi MF; Novaes AB; Taba M
    J Int Acad Periodontol; 2004 Apr; 6(2):56-62. PubMed ID: 15125016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A comparison between measurements made with a conventional periodontal pocket probe, an electronic pressure probe and measurements made at surgery.
    Galgut PN; Waite IM
    Int Dent J; 1990 Dec; 40(6):333-8. PubMed ID: 2276830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A periodontal probe with automated cemento--enamel junction detection-design and clinical trials.
    Jeffcoat MK; Jeffcoat RL; Captain K
    IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1991 Apr; 38(4):330-3. PubMed ID: 1855793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.