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

121 related items for PubMed ID: 12797592

  • 1. Influence of the Provox Flush, blowing and imitated coughing on voice prosthetic biofilms in vitro.
    Free RH, Van der Mei HC, Elving GJ, Van Weissenbruch R, Albers FW, Busscher HJ.
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2003 May; 123(4):547-51. PubMed ID: 12797592
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Biofilm formation on voice prostheses: influence of dairy products in vitro.
    Free RH, Van der Mei HC, Dijk F, Van Weissenbruch R, Busscher HJ, Albers FW.
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2000 Jan; 120(1):92-9. PubMed ID: 10779194
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Biofilm formation on voice prostheses: in vitro influence of probiotics.
    Free RH, Busscher HJ, Elving GJ, van der Mei HC, van Weissenbruch R, Albers FW.
    Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol; 2001 Oct; 110(10):946-51. PubMed ID: 11642428
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Influence of different combinations of bacteria and yeasts in voice prosthesis biofilms on air flow resistance.
    Elving GJ, van der Mei H, Busscher H, van Weissenbruch R, Albers F.
    Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek; 2003 Oct; 83(1):45-55. PubMed ID: 12755479
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. In vitro formation of oropharyngeal biofilms on silicone rubber treated with a palladium/tin salt mixture.
    Dijk F, Westerhof M, Busscher HJ, van Luyn MJ, van Der Mei HC.
    J Biomed Mater Res; 2000 Sep 05; 51(3):408-12. PubMed ID: 10880083
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. The effect of buttermilk consumption on biofilm formation on silicone rubber voice prostheses in an artificial throat.
    Busscher HJ, Bruinsma G, van Weissenbruch R, Leunisse C, van der Mei HC, Dijk F, Albers FW.
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 1998 Sep 05; 255(8):410-3. PubMed ID: 9801860
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Are modern voice prostheses better? A lifetime comparison of 749 voice prostheses.
    Kress P, Schäfer P, Schwerdtfeger FP, Rösler S.
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2014 Jan 05; 271(1):133-40. PubMed ID: 23812585
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Lactobacilli: important in biofilm formation on voice prostheses.
    Buijssen KJ, Harmsen HJ, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, van der Laan BF.
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2007 Sep 05; 137(3):505-7. PubMed ID: 17765785
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. In vitro biofilm growth on modern voice prostheses.
    Leonhard M, Zatorska B, Tan Y, Moser D, Schneider-Stickler B.
    Head Neck; 2018 Apr 05; 40(4):763-769. PubMed ID: 29286184
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Differences in aerodynamic characteristics of new and dysfunctional Provox 2 voice prostheses in vivo.
    Schwandt LQ, Tjong-Ayong HJ, van Weissenbruch R, der Mei HC, Albers FW.
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2006 Jun 05; 263(6):518-23. PubMed ID: 16421748
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. [Examination of biofilm related material deterioration on 20 PROVOX2 voice prostheses by scanning electron microscopy].
    Leonhard M, Reumüller A, Moser D, Bigenzahn W, Schneider-Stickler B.
    Laryngorhinootologie; 2009 Jun 05; 88(6):392-7. PubMed ID: 19221979
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. In vitro and in vivo comparison of the low-resistance Groningen and the Provox tracheosophageal voice prostheses.
    Chung RP, Patel P, Ter Keurs M, Van Lith Bijl JT, Mahieu HF.
    Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord); 1998 Jun 05; 119(5):301-6. PubMed ID: 10089797
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Microbial colonization of tracheoesophageal voice prostheses (Provox2) following total laryngectomy.
    Tićac B, Tićac R, Rukavina T, Kesovija PG, Pedisić D, Maljevac B, Starcević R.
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 2010 Oct 05; 267(10):1579-86. PubMed ID: 20432044
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. A comparison of survival lifetime of the Provox and the Provox2 voice prosthesis.
    Lequeux T, Badreldin A, Saussez S, Thill MP, Oujjan L, Chantrain G.
    J Laryngol Otol; 2003 Nov 05; 117(11):875-8. PubMed ID: 14670148
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Clinical phase I/feasibility study of the next generation indwelling Provox voice prosthesis (Provox Vega).
    Hilgers FJ, Ackerstaff AH, van Rossum M, Jacobi I, Balm AJ, Tan IB, van den Brekel MW.
    Acta Otolaryngol; 2010 Apr 05; 130(4):511-9. PubMed ID: 19895334
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Aerodynamic characteristics of the Provox low-resistance indwelling voice prosthesis.
    Hilgers FJ, Cornelissen MW, Balm AJ.
    Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol; 1993 Apr 05; 250(7):375-8. PubMed ID: 8286099
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 7.