| 000 | 02782cam a2200349 a 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 003 | EG-GiCUC | ||
| 005 | 20250223031231.0 | ||
| 008 | 150525s2014 ua h f m 000 0 eng d | ||
| 040 |
_aEG-GiCUC _beng _cEG-GiCUC |
||
| 041 | 0 | _aeng | |
| 049 | _aDeposite | ||
| 097 | _aM.Sc | ||
| 099 | _aCai01.09.09.M.Sc.2014.Ma.E | ||
| 100 | 0 | _aMay Saeed Sayed | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 |
_aEvaluating the effect of different retraction techniques on gingival sulcus dimensions using a novel technique = _bتقييم تأثير تقنيات مختلفة لأبعاد اللثة على حجم الشق اللثوى بأستخدام طريقه مستحدثة / _cMay Saeed Sayed ; Supervised Shereen Adel Ameen , Lamiaa Nabil Sherif Samaha , Wesam Abdelmoneim Mohamad Ahmad |
| 246 | 1 | 5 | _aتقييم تأثير تقنيات مختلفة لأبعاد اللثة على حجم الشق اللثوى بأستخدام طريقه مستحدثة |
| 260 |
_aCairo : _bMay Saeed Sayed , _c2014 |
||
| 300 |
_a109 Leaves : _bfacsimiles ; _c30cm |
||
| 502 | _aThesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine - Department of Prosthodontics | ||
| 520 | _aSome cases necessitate subgingival margin placement of restoration, but this should not violate the biological width to avoid gingival inflammation and recession. This is achieved by proper gingival tissue retraction to expose the finish line and reproduce it in the impression. Various techniques and materials for tissue retraction are present in the dental market. Their differences depend on amount of tissue retraction, effect on gingival tissue and quality of final impression. The aim of this study was to measure the amount of horizontal gingival tissue retraction caused by different retraction materials in vivo: Expasyl, GingiTrac and retraction cord using 3D technology (Omnicam), the gingival tissue recovery rate after retraction through measuring the level of pro-inflammatory mediator (TNF-alpha) in the gingival crevicular fluid before and 2, 7, 14 and 28 days after gingival retraction, and to evaluate the Omnicam as a method to measure the amount of tissue retraction directly in vivo. Forty volunteers with healthy gingiva were chosen for this study. Volunteers were divided into two main categories according to gingival biotype: thin and thick biotype. The areas to be measured were standardized | ||
| 530 | _aIssued also as CD | ||
| 653 | 4 | _aAmount of retraction | |
| 653 | 4 | _aExpasyl | |
| 653 | 4 | _aGingiva | |
| 700 | 0 |
_aLamiaa Nabil Sherif Samaha , _eSupervisor |
|
| 700 | 0 |
_aShereen Adel Ameen , _eSupervisor |
|
| 700 | 0 |
_aWesam Abdelmoneim Mohamad Ahmad , _eSupervisor |
|
| 856 | _uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf | ||
| 905 |
_aNazla _eRevisor |
||
| 905 |
_aSamia _eCataloger |
||
| 942 |
_2ddc _cTH |
||
| 999 |
_c51030 _d51030 |
||