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

159 related items for PubMed ID: 35300957

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

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

  • 3. 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; 94(41):e1685. PubMed ID: 26469902
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 5. Conventional Rotary Technique and Piezosurgical Technique in the Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar: A Comparative Study.
    Hamza SP, Aslam S, Roshni A, Cherian MP, Soman S, Akhila K.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2023 Feb 01; 24(2):97-102. PubMed ID: 37272140
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 7. Effects of platelet-rich fibrin and piezosurgery on impacted mandibular third molar surgery outcomes.
    Uyanık LO, Bilginaylar K, Etikan İ.
    Head Face Med; 2015 Jul 26; 11():25. PubMed ID: 26209242
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Efficacy of the technique of piezoelectric corticotomy for orthodontic traction of impacted mandibular third molars.
    Ma Z, Xu G, Yang C, Xie Q, Shen Y, Zhang S.
    Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2015 Apr 26; 53(4):326-31. PubMed ID: 25638568
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 10. 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 26; 24(1):51-55. PubMed ID: 31811604
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Comparison of clinical parameters and environmental noise levels between regular surgery and piezosurgery for extraction of impacted third molars.
    Chang HH, Lee MS, Hsu YC, Tsai SJ, Lin CP.
    J Formos Med Assoc; 2015 Oct 26; 114(10):929-35. PubMed ID: 24661578
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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 26; 49(1):64-69. PubMed ID: 33298388
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. RE: Piezosurgery Versus Conventional Osteotomy: A Comparison of Techniques in the Extraction of Uneruped Mandibular Third Molars in Children.
    Ohta K.
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Aug 26; 80(8):1311. PubMed ID: 35580723
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Influence of surgical ultrasound used in the detachment of flaps, osteotomy and odontosection in lower third molar surgeries. A prospective, randomized, and "split-mouth" clinical study.
    Silva LD, Reis EN, Bonardi JP, Lima VN, Aranega AM, Ponzoni D.
    Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal; 2020 Jul 01; 25(4):e461-e467. PubMed ID: 32388527
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of piezosurgery compared with traditional technique in lower wisdom tooth removal.
    Mantovani E, Arduino PG, Schierano G, Ferrero L, Gallesio G, Mozzati M, Russo A, Scully C, Carossa S.
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2014 Oct 01; 72(10):1890-7. PubMed ID: 25234524
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Piezosurgery or conventional rotatory instruments for inferior third molar extractions?
    Piersanti L, Dilorenzo M, Monaco G, Marchetti C.
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2014 Sep 01; 72(9):1647-52. PubMed ID: 25109581
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Piezoelectric device vs. conventional rotative instruments in impacted third molar surgery: relationships between surgical difficulty and postoperative pain with histological evaluations.
    Rullo R, Addabbo F, Papaccio G, D'Aquino R, Festa VM.
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2013 Mar 01; 41(2):e33-8. PubMed ID: 22890087
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Piezoelectric compared with conventional rotary osteotomy for the prevention of postoperative sequelae and complications after surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Badenoch-Jones EK, David M, Lincoln T.
    Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2016 Dec 01; 54(10):1066-1079. PubMed ID: 27832920
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. A Clinical Comparison of Er:YAG Laser, Piezosurgery, and Conventional Bur Methods in the Impacted Third Molar Surgery.
    Genç BGÇ, Orhan K, Or S.
    Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg; 2023 Jun 01; 41(6):283-290. PubMed ID: 37335617
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Comparison of postoperative morbidity between piezoelectric surgery and conventional rotary instruments in mandibular third molar surgery: a split-mouth clinical study.
    Gulnahar Y, Alpan AL.
    Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal; 2021 May 01; 26(3):e269-e275. PubMed ID: 33772570
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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