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 Gingival index and plaque index were recorded at baselin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

98 Gingival index, mean probing depth, presence of bleeding

99 = -0.27, 95% CI = -0.43 to -0.11), modified gingival index (mGI) (WMD = -0.48, 95% CI = -0.70 to -0.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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