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
284 related items for PubMed ID: 23524804
21. Titanium surface topography after brushing with fluoride and fluoride-free toothpaste simulating 10 years of use. Fais LM, Fernandes-Filho RB, Pereira-da-Silva MA, Vaz LG, Adabo GL. J Dent; 2012 Apr; 40(4):265-75. PubMed ID: 22265989 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Effect of brushing with conventional versus whitening dentifrices on surface roughness and biofilm formation of dental ceramics. Azevedo SM, Kantorski KZ, Valandro LF, Bottino MA, Pavanelli CA. Gen Dent; 2012 Apr; 60(3):e123-30. PubMed ID: 22623466 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. An in vitro evaluation of zirconia surface roughness caused by different scaling methods. Vigolo P, Motterle M. J Prosthet Dent; 2010 May; 103(5):283-7. PubMed ID: 20416411 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Implant surface alterations from a nonmetallic ultrasonic tip. Bailey GM, Gardner JS, Day MH, Kovanda BJ. J West Soc Periodontol Periodontal Abstr; 1998 May; 46(3):69-73. PubMed ID: 10597152 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. The adhesion of oral bacteria to modified titanium surfaces: role of plasma proteins and electrostatic forces. Badihi Hauslich L, Sela MN, Steinberg D, Rosen G, Kohavi D. Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Aug; 24 Suppl A100():49-56. PubMed ID: 22150723 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Evaluation of root surface microtopography following the use of four instrumentation systems by confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy: an in vitro study. Solís Moreno C, Santos A, Nart J, Levi P, Velásquez A, Sanz Moliner J. J Periodontal Res; 2012 Oct; 47(5):608-15. PubMed ID: 22494068 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Use of confocal microscopy for quantification of plastic remnants on rough titanium after instrumentation and evaluation of efficacy of removal. Yang SM, Park JB, Ko Y. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015 Oct; 30(3):519-25. PubMed ID: 26009902 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. The effect of five mechanical instrumentation protocols on implant surface topography and roughness: A scanning electron microscope and confocal laser scanning microscope analysis. Cha JK, Paeng K, Jung UW, Choi SH, Sanz M, Sanz-Martín I. Clin Oral Implants Res; 2019 Jun; 30(6):578-587. PubMed ID: 31022305 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Influence of different treatment approaches on the removal of early plaque biofilms and the viability of SAOS2 osteoblasts grown on titanium implants. Schwarz F, Sculean A, Romanos G, Herten M, Horn N, Scherbaum W, Becker J. Clin Oral Investig; 2005 Jun; 9(2):111-7. PubMed ID: 15841403 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Bacterial adhesion on smooth and rough titanium surfaces after treatment with different instruments. Duarte PM, Reis AF, de Freitas PM, Ota-Tsuzuki C. J Periodontol; 2009 Nov; 80(11):1824-32. PubMed ID: 19905952 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. The effects of mechanical instruments on contaminated titanium dental implant surfaces: a systematic review. Louropoulou A, Slot DE, Van der Weijden F. Clin Oral Implants Res; 2014 Oct; 25(10):1149-60. PubMed ID: 23834327 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]