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

210 related items for PubMed ID: 30294165

  • 1. Comparison of Surgical Outcome after Impacted Third Molar Surgery Using Piezotome and a Conventional Rotary Handpiece.
    Srivastava P, Shetty P, Shetty S.
    Contemp Clin Dent; 2018 Sep; 9(Suppl 2):S318-S324. PubMed ID: 30294165
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Comparative Study of Piezoelectric and Rotary Osteotomy Technique for Third Molar Impaction.
    Basheer SA, Govind RJ, Daniel A, Sam G, Adarsh VJ, Rao A.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2017 Jan 01; 18(1):60-64. PubMed ID: 28050988
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Comparative evaluation of surgical outcome after removal of impacted mandibular third molars using a Piezotome or a conventional handpiece: a prospective study.
    Goyal M, Marya K, Jhamb A, Chawla S, Sonoo PR, Singh V, Aggarwal A.
    Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2012 Sep 01; 50(6):556-61. PubMed ID: 22088359
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Piezoelectric Versus Conventional Rotary Techniques for Impacted Third Molar Extraction: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
    Jiang Q, Qiu Y, Yang C, Yang J, Chen M, Zhang Z.
    Medicine (Baltimore); 2015 Oct 01; 94(41):e1685. PubMed ID: 26469902
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Comparative and clinical evaluation between piezoelectric and conventional rotary techniques for mandibular impacted third molar extraction.
    Sharma AK, Gupta A, Pabari HP, Pathak SK, Odedra NH, Beniwal J, Arora KS.
    Natl J Maxillofac Surg; 2023 Oct 01; 14(2):208-212. PubMed ID: 37661971
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 8. A prospective split-mouth clinical study: comparison of piezosurgery and conventional rotary instruments in impacted third molar surgery.
    Menziletoglu D, Basturk F, Isik BK, Esen A.
    Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2020 Mar 01; 24(1):51-55. PubMed ID: 31811604
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 10. Measure Of Frequency Of Alveolar Osteitis Using Two Different Methods Of Osteotomy In Mandibular Third Molar Impactions: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Rashid H, Hussain A, Sheikh AH, Azam K, Malik S, Amin M.
    J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad; 2018 Mar 01; 30(1):103-106. PubMed ID: 29504342
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. A Pilot Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Piezo Versus Conventional Rotary Surgery for Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars.
    Saraiva Amaral J, Marto CM, Farias J, Alves Pereira D, Ermida J, Banaco Á, Campos Felino A, Caramelo F, Matos S.
    Bioengineering (Basel); 2022 Jun 25; 9(7):. PubMed ID: 35877327
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Postsurgical consequences in lower third molar surgical extraction using micromotor and piezosurgery.
    Mistry FK, Hegde ND, Hegde MN.
    Ann Maxillofac Surg; 2016 Jun 25; 6(2):251-259. PubMed ID: 28299267
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Does the piezoelectric surgical technique produce fewer postoperative sequelae after lower third molar surgery than conventional rotary instruments? A systematic review and meta analysis.
    Al-Moraissi EA, Elmansi YA, Al-Sharaee YA, Alrmali AE, Alkhutari AS.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2016 Mar 25; 45(3):383-91. PubMed ID: 26572830
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Influence of immediate post-extraction socket irrigation on development of alveolar osteitis after mandibular third molar removal: a prospective split-mouth study, preliminary report.
    Tolstunov L.
    Br Dent J; 2012 Dec 25; 213(12):597-601. PubMed ID: 23257808
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Piezosurgery vs High Speed Rotary Handpiece: a comparison between the two techniques in the impacted third molar surgery.
    Bartuli FN, Luciani F, Caddeo F, DE Chiara L, DI Dio M, Piva P, Ottria L, Arcuri C.
    Oral Implantol (Rome); 2013 Dec 25; 6(1):5-10. PubMed ID: 23991279
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Postoperative evaluation of Er:YAG laser, piezosurgery, and rotary systems used for osteotomy in mandibular third-molar extractions.
    Civak T, Ustun T, Yilmaz HN, Gursoy B.
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2021 Jan 25; 49(1):64-69. PubMed ID: 33298388
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. [Effectiveness of piezoelectric versus straight hand piece at low speed within the surgical extraction of retained lower third molars].
    Morales-Sambachi B, Andrade-Peñafiel A.
    Rev Cient Odontol (Lima); 2023 Jan 25; 10(4):e129. PubMed ID: 38390602
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Piezo-surgery technique and intramuscular dexamethasone injection to reduce postoperative pain after impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a randomized clinical trial.
    Nehme W, Fares Y, Abou-Abbas L.
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Aug 11; 21(1):393. PubMed ID: 34380473
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Randomized clinical study comparing Piezoelectric Surgery with conventional rotatory osteotomy in mandibular third molars surgeries.
    Al-Delayme RMA.
    Saudi Dent J; 2021 Jan 11; 33(1):11-21. PubMed ID: 33473237
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Conventional drilling versus ultrasound and laser osteotomy in mandibular third molar surgery: A comparative study.
    Blagova B, Krastev D, Malinova L.
    Lasers Surg Med; 2023 Dec 11; 55(10):862-870. PubMed ID: 37811576
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 11.