136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8599589)
21. Effect of root planing on surface topography: an in-vivo randomized experimental trial.
Rosales-Leal JI; Flores AB; Contreras T; Bravo M; Cabrerizo-Vílchez MA; Mesa F
J Periodontal Res; 2015 Apr; 50(2):205-10. PubMed ID: 24824304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Root surface smoothness or roughness following open debridement. An in vivo study.
Schlageter L; Rateitschak-Plüss EM; Schwarz JP
J Clin Periodontol; 1996 May; 23(5):460-4. PubMed ID: 8783052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Comparison between a short and a conventional blade periodontal curet: an in vitro study.
Landry C; Long B; Singer D; Senthilselvan A
J Clin Periodontol; 1999 Aug; 26(8):548-51. PubMed ID: 10450816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Evaluation of a new periodontal curet. An in vitro study.
Singer DL; Long BA; Lozanoff S; Senthilselvan A
J Clin Periodontol; 1992 Sep; 19(8):549-52. PubMed ID: 1447379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Sharpening of periodontal instruments with different sharpening stones and its influence upon root debridement--scanning electronic microscopy assessment.
Silva MV; Gomes DA; Leite FR; Sampaio JE; de Toledo BE; Mendes AJ
J Int Acad Periodontol; 2006 Jan; 8(1):17-22. PubMed ID: 16459885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. In vivo effects of an Er:YAG laser, an ultrasonic system and scaling and root planing on the biocompatibility of periodontally diseased root surfaces in cultures of human PDL fibroblasts.
Schwarz F; Aoki A; Sculean A; Georg T; Scherbaum W; Becker J
Lasers Surg Med; 2003; 33(2):140-7. PubMed ID: 12913887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Ultrasonic chemical vapor deposition-coated tip versus high- and low-speed carbide burs for apicoectomy: time required for resection and scanning electron microscopy analysis of the root-end surfaces.
Bernardes RA; de Souza Junior JV; Duarte MA; de Moraes IG; Bramante CM
J Endod; 2009 Feb; 35(2):265-8. PubMed ID: 19166787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Preservation of root cementum: a comparative evaluation of power-driven versus hand instruments.
Bozbay E; Dominici F; Gokbuget AY; Cintan S; Guida L; Aydin MS; Mariotti A; Pilloni A
Int J Dent Hyg; 2018 May; 16(2):202-209. PubMed ID: 27860247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. In vitro comparison of root surface roughness and bacterial adhesion following treatment with three different instruments.
Haroon F; Gregory RL; Hara A; Blanchard SB; Hamada Y
J Periodontol; 2022 May; 93(5):e83-e91. PubMed ID: 34338309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A comparison of root surface instrumentation using manual, ultrasonic and rotary instruments: an in vitro study using scanning electron microscopy.
Marda P; Prakash S; Devaraj CG; Vastardis S
Indian J Dent Res; 2012; 23(2):164-70. PubMed ID: 22945704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. In vivo scaling and root planing forces in molars.
Zappa U; Röthlisberger JP; Simona C; Case D
J Periodontol; 1993 May; 64(5):349-54. PubMed ID: 8515364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. The effect of the angle of instrumentation of the Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Scaler on root surfaces.
Oliveira G; Macedo PD; Tsurumaki JN; Sampaio JE; Marcantonio R
Int J Dent Hyg; 2016 Aug; 14(3):184-90. PubMed ID: 25690687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Influence of tooth instrumentation roughness on subgingival microbial colonization.
Leknes KN; Lie T; Wikesjö UM; Bogle GC; Selvig KA
J Periodontol; 1994 Apr; 65(4):303-8. PubMed ID: 8195973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Clinical attachment loss produced by curettes and ultrasonic scalers.
Alves RV; Machion L; Casati MZ; Nociti FH; Sallum EA; Sallum AW
J Clin Periodontol; 2005 Jul; 32(7):691-4. PubMed ID: 15966872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Root surface alterations following manual and mechanical scaling: A comparative study.
Maritato M; Orazi L; Laurito D; Formisano G; Serra E; Lollobrigida M; Molinari A; De Biase A
Int J Dent Hyg; 2018 Nov; 16(4):553-558. PubMed ID: 29797806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments--an in vitro profilometric and SEM study.
Singh S; Uppoor A; Nayak D
J Appl Oral Sci; 2012 Feb; 20(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 22437673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. In vivo and in vitro effects of an Er:YAG laser, a GaAlAs diode laser, and scaling and root planing on periodontally diseased root surfaces: a comparative histologic study.
Schwarz F; Sculean A; Berakdar M; Szathmari L; Georg T; Becker J
Lasers Surg Med; 2003; 32(5):359-66. PubMed ID: 12766958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. In vitro evaluation of effects of ultrasonic root-end preparation on resected root surfaces.
Min MM; Brown CE; Legan JJ; Kafrawy AH
J Endod; 1997 Oct; 23(10):624-8. PubMed ID: 9587275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. An SEM study of overhang removal methods.
Spinks GC; Carson RE; Hancock EB; Pelleu GB
J Periodontol; 1986 Oct; 57(10):632-6. PubMed ID: 3534211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Accuracy of three different electronic apex locators in detecting simulated horizontal and vertical root fractures.
Ebrahim AK; Wadachi R; Suda H
Aust Endod J; 2006 Aug; 32(2):64-9. PubMed ID: 16869945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
