戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 ove the cytocompatibility, osteogenesis, and osseointegration.
2 ing in extraction socket healing and implant osseointegration.
3  of porous biomaterials that enhance implant osseointegration.
4 containing terms relating to micromotion and osseointegration.
5  cleaned titanium surfaces as a model for re-osseointegration.
6 h may prevent or decrease the ability for re-osseointegration.
7 l limit of tolerable micromotion for implant osseointegration.
8 gration into peri-implant bone may influence osseointegration.
9 e that biology and mechanics play in implant osseointegration.
10 aration and, in doing so, facilitate implant osseointegration.
11 l surfaces to kill organisms while fostering osseointegration.
12 rmation and were biocompatible with enhanced osseointegration.
13  bone formation in support of dental implant osseointegration.
14 ing technique and sequence on dental implant osseointegration.
15 ion, and against different levels of implant osseointegration.
16 e been used to improve implant retention and osseointegration.
17 ntrol its growth and healing and can enhance osseointegration.
18 gnals associated with corrosion might affect osseointegration.
19 opographic alterations that may affect early osseointegration.
20 plants that support local bone formation and osseointegration.
21 ess, and that osterix (Osx) promotes implant osseointegration.
22 ion, and that Osx overexpression accelerates osseointegration.
23 ose undertaking normal bone healing regulate osseointegration.
24 ntrol strongly associated with the nature of osseointegration.
25 s was induced following the establishment of osseointegration.
26 ion and differentiation, bone formation, and osseointegration.
27 ration of doxycycline only slightly enhances osseointegration.
28 ting implant stability and the percentage of osseointegration.
29 s that early loading produces more favorable osseointegration.
30 ors should provide a better understanding of osseointegration.
31 hly effective strategy for improving implant osseointegration.
32 ure are stem cells supporting dental implant osseointegration.
33  do such tissues or materials interfere with osseointegration?
34 y, 31.8% +/- 1.6% versus 35.6% +/- 2.5%; and osseointegration, 32.9% +/- 7.4% versus 33.7% +/- 8.1%)
35 uded that exogenous BMSCs participate in the osseointegration after implantation, and that Osx overex
36 ulation and participate in wound healing and osseointegration after implantation.
37                          The 2024 Academy of Osseointegration/American Academy of Periodontology (AO/
38                                The advent of osseointegration and advances in biomaterials and techni
39 is surface functionalization showed improved osseointegration and an enhanced success rate.
40 ort peptides and gentamicin to improve their osseointegration and antibacterial features.
41 eoconductive and resulted in high degrees of osseointegration and biomechanical fixation.
42 e, the purpose of this study was to evaluate osseointegration and bone regeneration around nonsubmerg
43 evelopment of new agents to improve cellular osseointegration and bone regeneration.
44                              A good grade of osseointegration and primary/secondary stability was ach
45 ty to provide initial stability required for osseointegration and proper implant location and paralle
46  thread design on the quality and percent of osseointegration and resistance to reverse torque in the
47 cific locations where they might best aid in osseointegration and soft tissue remodeling.
48 r drawbacks-namely, the long time needed for osseointegration and the lack of inherent antimicrobial
49 n terms of PISF biomarker changes during the osseointegration and wound healing period.
50  of peri-implant diseases for the Academy of Osseointegration (AO)/American Academy of Periodontology
51   Moreover, no pin tract infection but tight osseointegration are observed.
52 ical analysis indicated osseous ingrowth and osseointegration around nonsubmerged and submerged impla
53 firm previous reports that diabetes inhibits osseointegration, as defined by MBIC.
54 ti-FGF23 antibody treatment, the strength of osseointegration, as evidenced by a biomechanical push-i
55 ant sulcular fluid (PISF) during healing and osseointegration at osteotomy sites prepared either with
56             Cellular and molecular events in osseointegration at the dental implant surface remain la
57  greatest regeneration of bone and degree of osseointegration: barrier membrane therapy plus deminera
58 one type of bone healed faster and supported osseointegration better than another.
59 phometry revealed significant differences in osseointegration, bone remodeling and periosteal reactio
60 lied either alone or in combination, improve osseointegration by increasing proliferation and osteobl
61 yapatite (HA) has been suggested to increase osseointegration by stimulating early osteoblast functio
62  implant push-in test assesses the degree of osseointegration by the breakpoint load at the implant-t
63  that the detrimental effects of diabetes on osseointegration can be modified using aminoguanidine sy
64 itanium, which is critical to the process of osseointegration, changes over time before its use.
65  the body, whether it be to encourage better osseointegration, combat possible infection or stem the
66 t recuperation or acute recovery after index osseointegration (eg, cardiopulmonary events).
67        This study explores the potential for osseointegration engineering with dental pulp cells (DPC
68 uate osteogenesis, osteodifferentiation, and osseointegration following peri-implant surgery is in hi
69  Ti-6Al-4V for dental implants with improved osseointegration for dental and biomedical applications.
70 n the surfaces of Ti-6Al-4V to enhance their osseointegration for dental implants.
71 s and oculoplastic surgeons with the role of osseointegration for oculofacial prosthesis retention in
72 dental implants which follows the concept of osseointegration has become an accepted treatment modali
73 abetes on bone-to-implant contact (BIC) once osseointegration has been established is still unknown.
74                         The biophysiology of osseointegration has been well established by our dentis
75 t-mediated bone resorption in the process of osseointegration has not been widely considered.
76                                  Advances in osseointegration have also enhanced the ability to achie
77 stems or functionalize implants for improved osseointegration have also led to outcomes that could ha
78  ePTFE membranes produced significantly more osseointegration histologically than other treatment opt
79 ntimicrobial activity in vitro and increased osseointegration in a rodent animal model 4 wk postsurge
80 s of controlled surface alterations in early osseointegration in an animal model.
81 t modality is important in obtaining optimum osseointegration in large size defects.
82 m implants provided radiographic evidence of osseointegration in loaded bridges.
83 new loading protocols with no expectation of osseointegration in patients usually not receiving conco
84  of a balanced block design study to examine osseointegration in root- and plate-form implants prepar
85 1.7) years (range, 58 days to 5 years) after osseointegration, including 17 (3.5%) who died of causes
86 grated to the machined titanium, both at the osseointegration interface and at the inner area of the
87                                              Osseointegration is a novel technique, where external pr
88                                  The implant osseointegration is completed at the time of jaw reconst
89 ntify sites in the oral cavity where implant osseointegration is likely to be successful.
90 tings on bone cell activity and bone-implant osseointegration is not well-established.
91                                      Implant osseointegration is reduced in patients with systemic co
92                                              Osseointegration is the key issue for implant success.
93 ations were peri-implantitis (six cases) and osseointegration losses (13 cases).
94 mplant failure (peri-implantitis and loss of osseointegration), marginal bone resorption, and biologi
95 ng 17 (3.5%) who died of causes unrelated to osseointegration (most commonly cardiac issues) and 2 (0
96  a preexisting health problem exacerbated by osseointegration (myocardial infarction after subsequent
97  is lost and replaced with a dental implant, osseointegration occurs without the intervening PDL, lea
98  140 women [28.9%]), with a mean (SD) age at osseointegration of 49.1 (14.6) years among living patie
99 ned implant surface microtopographies during osseointegration of dental implants.
100                                              Osseointegration of dental, craniofacial, and orthopedic
101 zation effectively improves bone quality and osseointegration of titanium implants in CKD mice, sugge
102 ization was able to improve bone quality and osseointegration of titanium implants.
103                                              Osseointegration (OI), or bone-anchoring, of a prosthesi
104 production are pivotal processes for implant osseointegration or bone tissue engineering.
105 teoid matrix that is responsible for implant osseointegration originates from Wnt-responsive cells an
106 lyses at multiple time points throughout the osseointegration period demonstrated that condensation c
107 of speeding up biology, thereby reducing the osseointegration period.
108                               Transcutaneous osseointegration post amputation (TOPA) creates a direct
109                               Transcutaneous osseointegration post amputation, consisting of a perman
110 at can be personalized, and exhibit enhanced osseointegration potential, with reduced need for animal
111 ch and development of implants with enhanced osseointegration potential.
112 ity as clinical tools for the imaging of the osseointegration process at the molecular level.
113 o properties of cell populations driving the osseointegration process have remained largely unknown.
114  mesenchymal stem cells, to recapitulate the osseointegration process in vitro.
115 ns at the bone-implant interface impair this osseointegration process, resulting in fibrous capsule f
116 ) cells severely compromised the healing and osseointegration processes.
117 diac issues) and 2 (0.4%) who died of direct osseointegration-related complications (infectious compl
118 itive biomechanical assay system for implant osseointegration research.
119 emain stable and exhibit clinically relevant osseointegration similar to when implants are placed wit
120 dence shows their negative impact on implant osseointegration, survival rates, and peri-implant healt
121 dules produced 3.1 times greater strength of osseointegration than those with an acid-etched surface
122 of osteoblasts exert a synergistic effect on osseointegration that is likely to support the hypothesi
123  In a mouse model of tibial implantation and osseointegration that mimics partial knee arthroplasty,
124 y models without facilitating the process of osseointegration, that could possibly impart propriocept
125 ct skeletal attachment of bionic devices via osseointegration, the amplification of neural signals by
126  arm and was anchored to the humerus through osseointegration, the process in which bone cells attach
127 vivo models of osteotomy healing and implant osseointegration to determine if one type of bone healed
128                                          The osseointegration-unfavorable condition created by gonada
129  the temporary was placed, it remained until osseointegration was complete.
130 ithelialization was complete; at PID14, when osseointegration was complete; and at PID28, when soft-t
131 tistically significant differences in defect osseointegration were seen between treatment groups (P <
132 hesize that there would be no differences in osseointegration when reducing the number of drills for
133                                              Osseointegration with rare earth magnetic coupling provi
134 HA-coated implants had significantly greater osseointegration within the defect than Ti implants (P <

 
Page Top