Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
significantly weaker » significantly greater (Expand Search), significantly better (Expand Search), significantly related (Expand Search)
weaker decrease » greater decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search), water decreases (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
significantly weaker » significantly greater (Expand Search), significantly better (Expand Search), significantly related (Expand Search)
weaker decrease » greater decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search), water decreases (Expand Search)
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
Qualitative changes in the implant subgroup.
Published 2025“…In the study group, the IOP was statistically significantly lower by 29% at the end of the follow-up compared to the preoperative measurements (<i><i>p</i></i> = 0.009). …”
-
8
Results of the colorimetric MTT test.
Published 2025“…In the study group, the IOP was statistically significantly lower by 29% at the end of the follow-up compared to the preoperative measurements (<i><i>p</i></i> = 0.009). …”
-
9
IOP fluctuation.
Published 2025“…In the study group, the IOP was statistically significantly lower by 29% at the end of the follow-up compared to the preoperative measurements (<i><i>p</i></i> = 0.009). …”
-
10
IOP fluctuation.
Published 2025“…In the study group, the IOP was statistically significantly lower by 29% at the end of the follow-up compared to the preoperative measurements (<i><i>p</i></i> = 0.009). …”
-
11
Granite sample.
Published 2025“…Notably, the impact of confining pressure on fthe elastic deformation energy of the rock mass was more significant than on dissipative deformation energy.</p></div>…”
-
12
X-ray diffractometer and mineral composition.
Published 2025“…Notably, the impact of confining pressure on fthe elastic deformation energy of the rock mass was more significant than on dissipative deformation energy.</p></div>…”
-
13
Continuous-discontinuous coupling model.
Published 2025“…Notably, the impact of confining pressure on fthe elastic deformation energy of the rock mass was more significant than on dissipative deformation energy.</p></div>…”
-
14
FLAC-PFC coupling calculation principle.
Published 2025“…Notably, the impact of confining pressure on fthe elastic deformation energy of the rock mass was more significant than on dissipative deformation energy.</p></div>…”
-
15
Energy evolution characteristics of granite.
Published 2025“…Notably, the impact of confining pressure on fthe elastic deformation energy of the rock mass was more significant than on dissipative deformation energy.</p></div>…”
-
16
Granite bond failure characteristic map.
Published 2025“…Notably, the impact of confining pressure on fthe elastic deformation energy of the rock mass was more significant than on dissipative deformation energy.</p></div>…”
-
17
Drawing test data.
Published 2025“…Notably, the impact of confining pressure on fthe elastic deformation energy of the rock mass was more significant than on dissipative deformation energy.</p></div>…”
-
18
Basic parameters of model.
Published 2025“…Notably, the impact of confining pressure on fthe elastic deformation energy of the rock mass was more significant than on dissipative deformation energy.</p></div>…”
-
19
Minimum data set used in the article.
Published 2025“…The average total phosphorus (TP) content in cropland soil was slightly higher than in forestland and significantly higher than in grassland. The weaker carbon-sequestration capacity of cropland soil resulted in notably lower C:N (10.13) and C:P (47.38) ratios compared to forestland and grassland. …”
-
20
Concentrations of C, N, and P in time change.
Published 2025“…The average total phosphorus (TP) content in cropland soil was slightly higher than in forestland and significantly higher than in grassland. The weaker carbon-sequestration capacity of cropland soil resulted in notably lower C:N (10.13) and C:P (47.38) ratios compared to forestland and grassland. …”