Guided tissue regeneration (GTR) versus cementum-impregnated gelatine membrane (CGM) techniques: a histologic comparison of relative effectiveness in promoting periodontal attachment.

Journal of Osaka Dental University

Volumn 31, Issue 1-2, 1997, Pages 11-17

  Suwa, K ^a  

^a OSAKA DENTAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GELATIN;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL MEMBRANE; BONE REGENERATION; CATTLE; CEMENTUM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; INCISOR; MACACA; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PERIODONTAL DISEASE; PERIODONTICS; PERIODONTIUM; PHYSIOLOGY; PREMOLAR TOOTH; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; TOOTH DISEASE; WOUND HEALING;

ANIMALS; BICUSPID; BONE REGENERATION; CATTLE; DENTAL CEMENTUM; FEMALE; GELATIN; GUIDED TISSUE REGENERATION, PERIODONTAL; INCISOR; MACACA; MALE; MEMBRANES, ARTIFICIAL; MICROSCOPY, ELECTRON, SCANNING; PERIODONTAL ATTACHMENT LOSS; PERIODONTIUM; TOOTH ANKYLOSIS; WOUND HEALING;

EID: 0031292592     PISSN: 04752058     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (0)