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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

237 related items for PubMed ID: 12420268

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. A biomechanical evaluation of bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomy fixation techniques.
    Peterson GP, Haug RH, Van Sickels J.
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2005 Sep; 63(9):1317-24. PubMed ID: 16122596
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. A biomechanical evaluation of mandibular condyle fracture plating techniques.
    Haug RH, Peterson GP, Goltz M.
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2002 Jan; 60(1):73-80; discussion 80-1. PubMed ID: 11757012
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. A biomechanical comparison of 2 techniques for reconstructing atrophic edentulous mandible fractures.
    Madsen MJ, Haug RH.
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Mar; 64(3):457-65. PubMed ID: 16487809
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. A comparative biomechanical evaluation of mandibular condyle fracture plating techniques.
    Asprino L, Consani S, de Moraes M.
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Mar; 64(3):452-6. PubMed ID: 16487808
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Effect of the number of screws on the stability of locking mandibular reconstruction plates.
    Pereira-Filho VA, da Silva BN, Nunes Reis JM, Spin-Neto R, Real Gabrielli MF, Monnazzi MS.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2013 Jun; 42(6):732-5. PubMed ID: 23528747
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Failure strength of 2.0 locking versus 2.0 conventional Synthes mandibular plates: A laboratory model.
    Chiodo TA, Ziccardi VB, Janal M, Sabitini C.
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2006 Oct; 64(10):1475-9. PubMed ID: 16982304
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Are locking screws advantageous with plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures? A biomechanical analysis of synthetic and cadaveric bone.
    O'Toole RV, Andersen RC, Vesnovsky O, Alexander M, Topoleski LD, Nascone JW, Sciadini MF, Turen C, Eglseder WA.
    J Orthop Trauma; 2008 Oct; 22(10):709-15. PubMed ID: 18978547
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Biomechanical evaluation of two plating configurations for fixation of a simple transverse caudal mandibular fracture model in cats.
    Greiner CL, Verstraete FJM, Stover SM, Garcia TC, Leale D, Arzi B.
    Am J Vet Res; 2017 Jun; 78(6):702-711. PubMed ID: 28541156
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Biomechanical evaluation of a new MatrixMandible plating system on cadaver mandibles.
    Gateno J, Cookston C, Hsu SS, Stal DN, Durrani SK, Gold J, Ismaily S, Alexander JW, Noble PC, Xia JJ.
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2013 Nov; 71(11):1900-14. PubMed ID: 24012175
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 12.