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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8537866)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Probe penetration in relation to the connective tissue attachment level: influence of tine shape and probing force.
    Bulthuis HM; Barendregt DS; Timmerman MF; Loos BG; van der Velden U
    J Clin Periodontol; 1998 May; 25(5):417-23. PubMed ID: 9650880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Controlled force measurements of gingival attachment level made with the Toronto automated probe using electronic guidance.
    Karim M; Birek P; McCulloch CA
    J Clin Periodontol; 1990 Sep; 17(8):594-600. PubMed ID: 2212091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Periodontal probing: probe tip diameter.
    Garnick JJ; Silverstein L
    J Periodontol; 2000 Jan; 71(1):96-103. PubMed ID: 10695944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. The prevalence and intraoral distribution of periodontal attachment loss in a birth cohort of 26-year-olds.
    Thomson WM; Hashim R; Pack AR
    J Periodontol; 2000 Dec; 71(12):1840-5. PubMed ID: 11156040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of manual and pressure-controlled periodontal probing.
    Kalkwarf KL; Kaldahl WB; Patil KD
    J Periodontol; 1986 Aug; 57(8):467-71. PubMed ID: 3528451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.