119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9178114)
1. In vitro accuracy and reproducibility of automated and conventional periodontal probes.
Samuel ED; Griffiths GS; Petrie A
J Clin Periodontol; 1997 May; 24(5):340-5. PubMed ID: 9178114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Accuracy and reproducibility of two manual periodontal probes. An in vitro study.
Buduneli E; Aksoy O; Köse T; Atilla G
J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Oct; 31(10):815-9. PubMed ID: 15367182
[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. 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]
5. 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]
6. Accuracy of probing attachment levels using a CEJ probe versus traditional probes.
Karpinia K; Magnusson I; Gibbs C; Yang MC
J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Mar; 31(3):173-6. PubMed ID: 15016020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A comparison of manual and controlled-force attachment-level measurements.
Reddy MS; Palcanis KG; Geurs NC
J Clin Periodontol; 1997 Dec; 24(12):920-6. PubMed ID: 9442430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Accuracy and reproducibility of probe forces during simulated periodontal pocket depth measurements.
Al Shayeb KN; Turner W; Gillam DG
Saudi Dent J; 2014 Apr; 26(2):50-5. PubMed ID: 25408596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Reproducibility of attachment level measurements with two models of the Florida Probe.
Marks RG; Low SB; Taylor M; Baggs R; Magnusson I; Clark WB
J Clin Periodontol; 1991 Nov; 18(10):780-4. PubMed ID: 1753003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Option-4 algorithm for automated disc probe: reduction in the variance of site-specific relative attachment level measurements.
Breen HJ; Rogers PA; Slaney RE; Lawless HC; Austin JS; Gillett IR; Johnson NW
J Periodontol; 1997 May; 68(5):456-66. PubMed ID: 9182741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Millimeter marks and probe tip diameter standardisation from commercially available periodontal probes. A comparative study.
Neto JB; Filho GR; Tramontina VA; Sallum EA; Nociti FH; Sallum AW
J Int Acad Periodontol; 2001 Jul; 3(3):57-60. PubMed ID: 12666942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Improvements in methods of periodontal probing: comparison of relative attachment level data selected by outlier reduction protocols from Florida disc probe measurements.
Breen HJ; Rogers PA; Johnson NW
J Clin Periodontol; 2002 Aug; 29(8):679-87. PubMed ID: 12390563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparative evaluation of accuracy of periodontal probing depth and attachment levels using a Florida probe versus traditional probes.
Gupta N; Rath SK; Lohra P
Med J Armed Forces India; 2015 Oct; 71(4):352-8. PubMed ID: 26663963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Measurement of clinical attachment levels using a constant-force periodontal probe modified to detect the cemento-enamel junction.
Preshaw PM; Kupp L; Hefti AF; Mariotti A
J Clin Periodontol; 1999 Jul; 26(7):434-40. PubMed ID: 10412847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
