ライフサイエンスコーパス: gingival index

1 evel, plaque index, bleeding on probing, and gingival index.

2 ed groups were observed for plaque index and gingival index.

3 clinical attachment level, plaque index, and gingival index.

4 al attachment loss, bleeding on probing, and gingival index.

5 n pocket depth (-0.29 +/- 0.13; p = .03) and gingival index (-0.26 +/- 0.13; p = .04).

6 tected among the infected sites in regard to gingival index (1.0 +/- 0.2 vs. 0.8 +/- 0.1) or probing

7 ere recorded, including: 1) plaque index; 2) gingival index; 3) bleeding on probing (BOP); 4) probing

8 d a greater reduction than placebo in PD and gingival index, along with increased gain in CAL.

9 exhibited a statistically significant higher gingival index and amount of lingual gingival recession

10 Sn2+ gel twice daily had significantly lower Gingival Index and Bleeding Tendency scores at the one-,

11 ng probing depth, clinical attachment level, gingival index and plaque index were recorded at baselin

12 Gingival index and plaque index were recorded at baselin

13 The gingival index and probing depth were used as measures o

14 uration, implant mobility, plaque index, and gingival index) and radiographic bone level measurements

15 ing probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing, gingival index, and plaque index (PI), were also recorde

16 ingivitis by evaluating bleeding on probing, gingival index, and plaque index between stannous fluori

17 Probing depth, bleeding on probing, gingival index, and plaque index clinical parameters wer

18 depth, bleeding on probing, tooth mobility, gingival index, and plaque index was performed on the me

19 nical attachment level, bleeding on probing, gingival index, and plaque index.

20 ssessment of probing depth, attachment loss, gingival index, and plaque index.

21 The gingival index at baseline was significantly (P < 0.05)

22 the manual group in the clinical parameters (gingival index, bleeding index, probing depth, and clini

23 ameters evaluated included the plaque index, gingival index, bleeding index, probing depths, recessio

24 Parameters evaluated included plaque score, gingival index, bleeding index, probing depths, recessio

25 l parameters assessed included plaque index, gingival index, bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth

26 obing depth [PD], clinical attachment level, gingival index, bleeding on probing, and plaque index) w

27 Clinical assessments (Plaque Index, Gingival Index, Bleeding Tendency, pocket depth, and cor

28 probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing, and gingival index change after treatment.

29 inical outcomes evaluated were plaque index, gingival index, clinical attachment level (CAL), and PD.

30 inical attachment loss, bleeding on probing, gingival index, fasting glucose level, and Homeostasis M

31 adjacent and non-adjacent sites: plaque and gingival indexes, free gingival margin, probing depth, a

32 Mean modified plaque index (mPI; P < 0.01), gingival index (G]; P < 0.01), and bleeding on probing (

33 resenting with probing depth (PD) >=4 mm and gingival index (GI) >=1 at >=4 sites distributed over >=

34 ing on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), and gingival index (GI) (P </=0.002) and a significant drop

35 presenting with probing depth (PD) 4 mm and gingival index (GI) 1 at 4 sites distributed over 2 ante

36 monstrated a nearly significant reduction in gingival index (GI) and a significant reduction in GI at

37 Gingival index (GI) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were e

38 attachment levels (CAL), Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Index (GI) and Papillary Bleeding Index (PBI) w

39 The gingival index (GI) and plaque index (PI) were recorded.

40 level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), and gingival index (GI) at baseline and at 3 and 6 months.

41 The plaque index and gingival index (GI) increased at the evaluation just bef

42 s with a probing depth (PD) of 5 to 7 mm and gingival index (GI) of >/=2.

43 The plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) of this group at baseline (PI = 0.77

44 obing depth (PD), attachment level (AL), and gingival index (GI) was performed.

45 Plaque index (PI), bleeding index (BI), and gingival index (GI) were measured at 4 weeks (baseline),

46 h (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and gingival index (GI) were performed by calibrated masked

47 dex (QHI), papilla bleeding index (PBI), and gingival index (GI) were recorded at baseline and 2, 8,

48 Interdental plaque score (IPS) and gingival index (GI) were recorded at baseline and 4-week

49 rmed at baseline and after 6 months were: 1) gingival index (GI), 2) probing depth (PD), 3) clinical

50 ), clinical attachment level (CAL), modified gingival index (GI), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were

51 l attachment level (CAL), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and bleeding on probing (BOP), were

52 Mean increases in plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF)

53 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42, plaque index (PlI), gingival index (GI), and gingival crevicular fluid volum

54 tes showed an increase in plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and myeloperoxidase (MPO) (an indic

55 ependent increases in the plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and percentage of bleeding on probi

56 ment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), gingival index (GI), and periodontal inflamed surface ar

57 exposed, tissue-implant horizontal distance, gingival index (GI), and plaque index (PI) were assessed

58 ng depths, clinical attachment levels (CAL), gingival index (GI), and plaque index (PI) were measured

59 whole-mouth periodontal probing depth (PD), gingival index (GI), and plaque index (PI) were monitore

60 attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), gingival index (GI), and plaque index (PI), were assesse

61 ling response were also performed using BOP, gingival index (GI), and plaque index (Pl) at baseline a

62 ment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), gingival index (GI), and plaque index were measured at b

63 P. gingivalis (P<0.05) included age, average gingival index (GI), average probing depth, and number o

64 chment level (CAL), gingival recession (GR), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and hori

65 l attachment level (CAL), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and infl

66 Outcome measures were plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), PD, ging

67 ssessed for each subject: plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing

68 ontal clinical parameters-plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing

69 n 17 subjects (506 scoring sites), using the gingival index (GI), bleeding points index (BPI), and pl

70 n at baseline included plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI), clinical attachment level (CAL) mea

71 ntal parameters including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), gingival bleeding index (GBI), comm

72 h of KM and AM, modified plaque index (mPI), gingival index (GI), modified bleeding index (mBI), prob

73 ficant differences in the plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), PD, and clinical AL at examination

74 Assessment of gingival index (GI), PD, and relative clinical attachmen

75 Probing depth, gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), and bleeding on

76 mples were obtained and probing depths (PD), gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), and gingival ble

77 pths (PD), clinical attachment levels (CAL), gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), and vertical bit

78 Baseline measurements included gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), position of the

79 A expression did not show a correlation with gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), probing depth (P

80 ment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), RA disease activ

81 ment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), gingival index (GI), plaque index, and wound healing ind

82 At the baseline and 6-month visits, gingival index (GI), plaque index, bleeding on probing,

83 Periodontal indices including plaque index, gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on

84 were calculated for mean plaque score, mean gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and clinical at

85 were calculated for mean plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and clinical at

86 Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and clinical at

87 the percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and clinical at

88 cal and oral examination, plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and clinical at

89 (PI), modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and clinical at

90 es of periodontal health: plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and loss of att

91 The plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), clinical attach

92 Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), clinical attach

93 Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), clinical attach

94 rs were recorded, such as plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), clinical attach

95 oral hygiene index-simplified (OHI-S) score, gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), clinical attach

96 l measurements, including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), clinical attach

97 At baseline, plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), gingival margin

98 ameters assessed included plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), periodontal ind

99 cal parameters, including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), relative clinical attachment levels

100 Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Index (GI), systemic WBC counts, and peripheral

101 al attachment level (CAL), plaque index, and gingival index (GI), were assessed in all participants.

102 e index (PI), wound healing index (WHI), and gingival index (GI).

103 , probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), and gingival index (GI).

104 most frequently assessed by the Loe-Silness gingival index (GI).

105 gival thickness (GT), plaque index (PI), and gingival index (GI).

106 bleeding on probing, plaque index (PI), and gingival index (GI).

107 1) Plaque index (PI); 2) gingival index (GI); 3) oral hygiene index-simplified (O

108 r ligature removal: 1) plaque index (PI); 2) gingival index (GI); 3) probing depths (PD); 4) relative

109 third molar teeth; 2) plaque index (PI); 3) gingival index (GI); 4) calculus index (CI); 5) caries i

110 laque index; 2) oral hygiene index (OHI); 3) gingival index (GI); 4) probing depth (PD); and 5) clini

111 chment level (CAL); 3) plaque index (PI); 4) gingival index (GI); 5) CRP; and 6) complete blood count

112 data (probing depth [PD], plaque index [PI], gingival index [GI], bleeding on probing [BOP], and clin

113 nical parameters (bleeding on probing [BoP], gingival index [GI], plaque index [PI], probing depth [P

114 rwent periodontal examination (plaque index, gingival index [GI], probing depth [PD], and clinical at

115 xhibited significantly greater reductions in gingival index, gingival severity index, proximal gingiv

116 arameters (P > 0.05), except for whole mouth gingival index (increased in nonsmokers at 3 months; P <

117 High gingival index individuals (PPC-V) showed moderate/high

118 Eastman bleeding index, modified gingival index, intensity of stain, and extent of stain

119 e reduction in both Plaque Index (TMQHI) and Gingival Index (mean MGI) at Day 3, Day 11 and Day 27 wa

120 assessed were oral hygiene index-simplified, gingival index, mean probing depth, and loss of attachme

121 Gingival index, mean probing depth, presence of bleeding

122 = -0.27, 95% CI = -0.43 to -0.11), modified gingival index (mGI) (WMD = -0.48, 95% CI = -0.70 to -0.

123 dpoints were improvements in PI and Modified Gingival Index (mGI) from baseline values.

124 provements in plaque index (PI) and modified gingival index (mGI) from baseline values.

125 level, bleeding on probing, and the Modified Gingival Index (MGI) scores.

126 loss (AL), bleeding index (BI), and modified gingival index (MGI) were recorded.

127 ingival inflammation, measured by a modified gingival index (MGI), and secondary outcomes included ch

128 activity and mean probing depth (MPD), mean gingival index (MGI), and the number of sites with probi

129 Efficacy was assessed by modified gingival index (MGI), bleeding on probing, plaque index,

130 included whole mouth mean scores of modified gingival index (MGI), modified sulcus bleeding index (mS

131 By 9 months only the gingival index of non-smokers decreased significantly co

132 anti-tartar agent to reduce plaque index and gingival index over a 3-month study period compared to o

133 tartar agent to reduce Plaque Index (PI) and Gingival Index over a 3-month study period.

134 probing, and 0.27 (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.37) for gingival index (P < .001 for all).

135 sampled-site clinical attachment level, and gingival index (P <0.05).

136 d filled teeth index (P=0.0038), higher mean gingival index (P=0.0001), and higher mean calculus scor

137 non-diabetic men: plaque index, P < 0.0001; gingival index, P < 0.0002; bleeding score, P < 0.0001;

138 us was evaluated by measuring probing depth, gingival index, papillary bleeding index, and plaque ind

139 ical parameters evaluated were plaque index, gingival index, papillary index (PPI) (0 = no papilla, 1

140 ay 42 bleeding on probing (primary outcome), gingival index, plaque control record, probing attachmen

141 val index, gingival severity index, proximal gingival index, plaque index and proximal plaque index c

142 as probing depth, clinical attachment level, gingival index, plaque index, and bleeding on probing we

143 th generalized estimating equations included gingival index, plaque index, and bleeding on probing.

144 he percentage of periodontal diseased sites, gingival index, plaque index, and clinical attachment le

145 mined by a blinded examiner who measured the gingival index, plaque index, and gingival severity inde

146 Clinical measurements included a gingival index, plaque index, mobility, and, referencing

147 obing depth (PD), clinical attachment level, gingival index, plaque index, patient discomfort, and wo

148 Four periodontal parameters, gingival index, plaque index, probing depth, and clinica

149 , the values of clinical parameters, such as gingival index, plaque index, probing depth, and clinica

150 For mandibular-posterior teeth, gingival index, plaque index, probing depth, attachment

151 months post-treatment: gingival fluid flow, gingival index, plaque index, probing depth, probing att

152 Clinical evaluation was undertaken using a gingival index, plaque was assessed using a modification

153 that only the probing depth (negatively) and gingival index (positively) predicted GIPI (R(2) adjuste

154 Plaque index, gingival index, probing depth (PD), clinical attachment

155 eth present, ST keratosis lesion, plaque and gingival index, probing depth (PD), recession depth (RD)

156 If complete examinations (plaque/gingival index, probing depth [PD], vertical clinical at

157 the presence of B. forsythus and AST values, gingival index, probing depth, and attachment level (P <

158 eriodontal assessment included plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, and attachment level at s

159 lobin, fasting plasma glucose, plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, and attachment loss when

160 Plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, and clinical attachment l

161 Periodontal parameters (plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, and clinical attachment l

162 ficantly higher in smokers than non-smokers: gingival index, probing depth, and loss of attachment.

163 tal students were assessed for plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, and width of keratinized

164 to examine the contribution of age, gender, gingival index, probing depth, attachment loss, calculus

165 ontal examination consisted of plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, bleeding index, and attac

166 recorded for the mandibular posterior teeth: gingival index, probing depth, cemento-enamel junction-g

167 wing parameters were recorded: plaque index, gingival index, recession height, probing depth, recessi

168 ng the simplified oral hygiene index and the gingival index, respectively.

169 ts had statistically significant larger mean gingival index scores than age, gender, and smoking hist

170 The lobene modified gingival index scoring was used for inflammation scoring

171 ll likely result in a large reduction in the gingival index (standardized mean difference, -2.17; 95%

172 inical periodontal parameters (plaque index, gingival index, sulcus bleeding index, probing depth, an

173 Our findings showed that EG had a greater gingival index than NG and was healthy (p < 0.01 of all

174 The following parameters were assessed: gingival index, tooth mobility; liver status, and portal

175 probing depths, fewer bleeding sites, lower gingival index values, fewer furcation involvements, les

176 Clinical parameters of plaque index, gingival index, vertical recession (VR), probing depth,

177 Mean gingival index was positively associated with WSL (p = 0

178 Clinical examinations using a gingival index were performed at baseline and at 3 and 6

179 Probing depth, plaque index, and gingival index were recorded and subjects instructed in