+ All Categories
Home > Documents > UGR · the population was 1 5 , 56 and index CPITN, 2. Non especific oral lesion and typical lesion...

UGR · the population was 1 5 , 56 and index CPITN, 2. Non especific oral lesion and typical lesion...

Date post: 27-Oct-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 2 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
7
Transcript
Page 1: UGR · the population was 1 5 , 56 and index CPITN, 2. Non especific oral lesion and typical lesion of the mean age of the population studied was observed. chemical gustometry showed
Page 2: UGR · the population was 1 5 , 56 and index CPITN, 2. Non especific oral lesion and typical lesion of the mean age of the population studied was observed. chemical gustometry showed
Page 3: UGR · the population was 1 5 , 56 and index CPITN, 2. Non especific oral lesion and typical lesion of the mean age of the population studied was observed. chemical gustometry showed
Page 4: UGR · the population was 1 5 , 56 and index CPITN, 2. Non especific oral lesion and typical lesion of the mean age of the population studied was observed. chemical gustometry showed
Page 5: UGR · the population was 1 5 , 56 and index CPITN, 2. Non especific oral lesion and typical lesion of the mean age of the population studied was observed. chemical gustometry showed
Page 6: UGR · the population was 1 5 , 56 and index CPITN, 2. Non especific oral lesion and typical lesion of the mean age of the population studied was observed. chemical gustometry showed
Page 7: UGR · the population was 1 5 , 56 and index CPITN, 2. Non especific oral lesion and typical lesion of the mean age of the population studied was observed. chemical gustometry showed

Recommended