|
|
Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 90-100
|
|
Influence of two different approaches to reporting implant survival outcomes for five different prosthodontic applications.
|
|
Author keywords
[No Author keywords available]
|
|
Indexed keywords
BIOMATERIAL;
DENTAL ALLOY;
HYDROXYAPATITE;
TITANIUM;
TITANIUM ALLOY (TIAL6V4);
ADULT;
AGED;
ARTICLE;
BONE DENSITY;
CLINICAL TRIAL;
COMPARATIVE STUDY;
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL;
CONTROLLED STUDY;
DENTAL SURGERY;
EDENTULOUSNESS;
FEMALE;
FOLLOW UP;
HUMAN;
MALE;
MANDIBLE;
MAXILLA;
MECHANICAL STRESS;
MIDDLE AGED;
MULTICENTER STUDY;
PROSPECTIVE STUDY;
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;
STATISTICAL MODEL;
SURVIVAL;
TOOTH IMPLANTATION;
TOOTH PROSTHESIS;
TREATMENT OUTCOME;
ADULT;
AGED;
AGED, 80 AND OVER;
BONE DENSITY;
COATED MATERIALS, BIOCOMPATIBLE;
DENTAL ALLOYS;
DENTAL IMPLANTS;
DENTAL IMPLANTS, SINGLE-TOOTH;
DENTAL PROSTHESIS DESIGN;
DENTAL PROSTHESIS, IMPLANT-SUPPORTED;
DENTAL RESTORATION FAILURE;
DURAPATITE;
FEMALE;
FOLLOW-UP STUDIES;
HUMANS;
JAW, EDENTULOUS;
JAW, EDENTULOUS, PARTIALLY;
LINEAR MODELS;
MALE;
MANDIBLE;
MAXILLA;
MIDDLE AGED;
PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;
STRESS, MECHANICAL;
SURVIVAL ANALYSIS;
TITANIUM;
TREATMENT OUTCOME;
|
|
EID: 0034585257
PISSN: 15530841
EISSN: None
Source Type: Journal
DOI: 10.1902/annals.2000.5.1.90 Document Type: Article |
|
Times cited : (17)
|
|
References (0)
|
