237 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9444589)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Reliability of single and double probing attachment level measurements.
Zappa U; Simona C; Graf H; Case D; Thomas J
J Clin Periodontol; 1995 Oct; 22(10):764-71. PubMed ID: 8682923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
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. Reliability of direct and indirect clinical attachment level measurements.
Corraini P; Baelum V; Lopez R
J Clin Periodontol; 2013 Sep; 40(9):896-905. PubMed ID: 23869826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The rate of periodontal attachment loss in subjects with established periodontitis.
Machtei EE; Norderyd J; Koch G; Dunford R; Grossi S; Genco RJ
J Periodontol; 1993 Aug; 64(8):713-8. PubMed ID: 8410609
[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. The relationship between probing attachment loss and computerized radiographic analysis in monitoring progression of periodontitis.
Deas DE; Pasquali LA; Yuan CH; Kornman KS
J Periodontol; 1991 Feb; 62(2):135-41. PubMed ID: 2027061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Reproducibility of an electronic probe in relative attachment level measurements.
Yang MC; Marks RG; Magnusson I; Clouser B; Clark WB
J Clin Periodontol; 1992 Sep; 19(8):541-8. PubMed ID: 1447378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effect of different diagnostic thresholds on incidence of disease progression.
Oringer RJ; Fiorellini JP; Reasner DS; Howell TH
J Periodontol; 1998 Aug; 69(8):872-8. PubMed ID: 9736369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Progression of probing attachment loss in adult periodontitis.
Jeffcoat MK; Reddy MS
J Periodontol; 1991 Mar; 62(3):185-9. PubMed ID: 2027069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
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]
