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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8083795)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Reproducibility and validity of the assessment of clinical furcation parameters as related to different probes.
    Eickholz P; Kim TS
    J Periodontol; 1998 Mar; 69(3):328-36. PubMed ID: 9579619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of a conventional probe with electronic and manual pressure-regulated probes.
    Perry DA; Taggart EJ; Leung A; Newburn E
    J Periodontol; 1994 Oct; 65(10):908-13. PubMed ID: 7823271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Clinical evaluation of electronic and manual constant force probes.
    Khocht A; Chang KM
    J Periodontol; 1998 Jan; 69(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 9527557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Measuring clinical attachment: reproducibility of relative measurements with an electronic probe.
    Clark WB; Yang MC; Magnusson I
    J Periodontol; 1992 Oct; 63(10):831-8. PubMed ID: 1403590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of a new furcation stent as a fixed reference point for class II furcation measurements.
    Laxman VK; Khatri M; Devaraj CG; Reddy K; Reddy R
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2009 Mar; 10(2):18-25. PubMed ID: 19279968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Comparison of measurement variability using a standard and constant force periodontal probe.
    Osborn J; Stoltenberg J; Huso B; Aeppli D; Pihlstrom B
    J Periodontol; 1990 Aug; 61(8):497-503. PubMed ID: 2391627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The reproducibility and validity of furcation measurements using a pressure-calibrated probe.
    Kim TS; Knittel M; Staehle HJ; Eickholz P
    J Clin Periodontol; 1996 Sep; 23(9):826-31. PubMed ID: 8891933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Periodontal probe precision using 4 different periodontal probes.
    Mayfield L; Bratthall G; Attström R
    J Clin Periodontol; 1996 Feb; 23(2):76-82. PubMed ID: 8849842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparative reproducibility of proximal probing depth using electronic pressure-controlled and hand probing.
    Mullally BH; Linden GJ
    J Clin Periodontol; 1994 Apr; 21(4):284-8. PubMed ID: 8195446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Comparison of manual and automated probing in an untreated periodontitis population.
    Oringer RJ; Fiorellini JP; Koch GG; Sharp TJ; Nevins ML; Davis GH; Howell TH
    J Periodontol; 1997 Dec; 68(12):1156-62. PubMed ID: 9444589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Inter- and intra-examiner variability using standard and constant force periodontal probes.
    Walsh TF; Saxby MS
    J Clin Periodontol; 1989 Mar; 16(3):140-3. PubMed ID: 2723096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.