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

156 related items for PubMed ID: 2640245

  • 1. Effects of an air-powder abrasive system on plasma-sprayed titanium implant surfaces: an in vitro evaluation.
    Parham PL, Cobb CM, French AA, Love JW, Drisko CL, Killoy WJ.
    J Oral Implantol; 1989; 15(2):78-86. PubMed ID: 2640245
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of the effects of an air-abrasive system on dental implants: a comparative in vitro study between machined and plasma-sprayed titanium surfaces.
    Chairay JP, Boulekbache H, Jean A, Soyer A, Bouchard P.
    J Periodontol; 1997 Dec; 68(12):1215-22. PubMed ID: 9444598
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. SEM evaluation of the in-vitro effects of an air-abrasive system on various implant surfaces.
    Barnes CM, Fleming LS, Mueninghoff LA.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1991 Dec; 6(4):463-9. PubMed ID: 1820316
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. In vitro studies on the effect of cleaning methods on different implant surfaces.
    Augthun M, Tinschert J, Huber A.
    J Periodontol; 1998 Aug; 69(8):857-64. PubMed ID: 9736367
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Effects of chlorhexidine and stannous fluoride on fibroblast attachment to different implant surfaces.
    Burchard WB, Cobb CM, Drisko CL, Killoy WJ.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1991 Aug; 6(4):418-26. PubMed ID: 1668169
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. In vitro evaluation of the biocompatibility of contaminated implant surfaces treated with an Er : YAG laser and an air powder system.
    Kreisler M, Kohnen W, Christoffers AB, Götz H, Jansen B, Duschner H, d'Hoedt B.
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2005 Feb; 16(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 15642029
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. [In vitro effects on rough implant surfaces of different instrumentations used in the surgical therapy of peri-implantitis].
    Espedito Di Lauro A, Morgese F, Squillace A, Ramaglia L.
    Minerva Stomatol; 2003 Feb; 52(1-2):1-7. PubMed ID: 12686908
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Cleaning and modification of intraorally contaminated titanium discs with calcium phosphate powder abrasive treatment.
    Tastepe CS, Liu Y, Visscher CM, Wismeijer D.
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Nov; 24(11):1238-46. PubMed ID: 22882522
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Profilometric and standard error of the mean analysis of rough implant surfaces treated with different instrumentations.
    Ramaglia L, di Lauro AE, Morgese F, Squillace A.
    Implant Dent; 2006 Mar; 15(1):77-82. PubMed ID: 16569965
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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]

  • 11. Fibronectin and laminin enhance gingival cell attachment to dental implant surfaces in vitro.
    Dean JW, Culbertson KC, D'Angelo AM.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1995 Nov; 10(6):721-8. PubMed ID: 8530175
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Reuse of healing abutments: an in vitro model of plasma cleaning and common sterilization techniques.
    Vezeau PJ, Keller JC, Wightman JP.
    Implant Dent; 2000 Nov; 9(3):236-46. PubMed ID: 11307410
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Contaminated implant surfaces: an in vitro comparison of implant surface coating and treatment modalities for decontamination.
    Dennison DK, Huerzeler MB, Quinones C, Caffesse RG.
    J Periodontol; 1994 Oct; 65(10):942-8. PubMed ID: 7823276
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Oral bacterial attachment to titanium surfaces: a scanning electron microscopy study.
    Wu-Yuan CD, Eganhouse KJ, Keller JC, Walters KS.
    J Oral Implantol; 1995 Oct; 21(3):207-13. PubMed ID: 8699514
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. An in vitro study of the treatment of implant surfaces with different instruments.
    Mengel R, Buns CE, Mengel C, Flores-de-Jacoby L.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1998 Oct; 13(1):91-6. PubMed ID: 9509785
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. The effects of EDTA gel conditioning exposure time on periodontitis-affected human root surfaces: surface topography and PDL cell adhesion.
    Gamal AY, Mailhot JM.
    J Int Acad Periodontol; 2003 Jan; 5(1):11-22. PubMed ID: 12666951
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Titanium deposition after peri-implant care with the carbon dioxide laser.
    Deppe H, Greim H, Brill T, Wagenpfeil S.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2002 Jan; 17(5):707-14. PubMed ID: 12381072
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Bone cell attachment to dental implants of different surface characteristics.
    Lumbikanonda N, Sammons R.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2001 Jan; 16(5):627-36. PubMed ID: 11669244
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Er:Yag Laser application on titanium implant surfaces contaminated by Porphyromonas gingivalis: an histomorphometric evaluation.
    Quaranta A, Maida C, Scrascia A, Campus G, Quaranta M.
    Minerva Stomatol; 2009 Jan; 58(7-8):317-30. PubMed ID: 19633633
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Surface chemistry effects of topographic modification of titanium dental implant surfaces: 1. Surface analysis.
    Morra M, Cassinelli C, Bruzzone G, Carpi A, Di Santi G, Giardino R, Fini M.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2003 Jan; 18(1):40-5. PubMed ID: 12608667
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.