125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9527557)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. 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]
6. 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]
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. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Reproducibility of probing depth measurement by an experimental periodontal probe incorporating optical fiber sensor.
Ishihata K; Wakabayashi N; Wadachi J; Akizuki T; Izumi Y; Takakuda K; Igarashi Y
J Periodontol; 2012 Feb; 83(2):222-7. PubMed ID: 21574830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Correlation between electronic and visual readings of pocket depths with a newly developed constant force probe.
Magnusson I; Fuller WW; Heins PJ; Rau CF; Gibbs CH; Marks RG; Clark WB
J Clin Periodontol; 1988 Mar; 15(3):180-4. PubMed ID: 3162464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
