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
162 related items for PubMed ID: 37661971
21. 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; 49(1):64-69. PubMed ID: 33298388 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. A split-mouth study comparing piezo electric surgery and traditional rotary burs on impacted third molars in young patients: an intraoperative and postoperative evaluation. Zara F, De Sanctis CM, Dede FC, Bossù M, Sfasciotti GL. Minerva Stomatol; 2020 Oct 11; 69(5):278-285. PubMed ID: 32407060 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Comparison of piezosurgery and conventional rotatory technique in transalveolar extraction of mandibular third molars: A pilot study. Rashid N, Subbiah V, Agarwal P, Kumar S, Bansal A, Neeraj, Reddy SG, Chug A. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res; 2020 Oct 11; 10(4):615-618. PubMed ID: 32963954 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. The piezoelectric osteotomy technique compared to the one with rotary instruments in the surgery of included third molars. A clinical study. Itro A, Lupo G, Marra A, Carotenuto A, Cocozza E, Filipi M, D'Amato S. Minerva Stomatol; 2012 Jun 11; 61(6):247-53. PubMed ID: 22669054 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. 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 Jun 11; 6(1):5-10. PubMed ID: 23991279 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. 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 11; 50(6):556-61. PubMed ID: 22088359 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. 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 11; 41(2):e33-8. PubMed ID: 22890087 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. 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 11; 114(10):929-35. PubMed ID: 24661578 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Piezosurgery versus conventional osteotomy: a randomized clinical trial on pain and anxiety in children with unerupted mandibular third molars. Yang L, Chen Y, Fang W. Clin Oral Investig; 2023 Dec 21; 28(1):9. PubMed ID: 38127199 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Piezosurgery vs conventional rotary instrument in the third molar surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Liu J, Hua C, Pan J, Han B, Tang X. J Dent Sci; 2018 Dec 21; 13(4):342-349. PubMed ID: 30895143 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]