ugr · the population was 1 5 , 56 and index cpitn, 2. non especific oral lesion and typical lesion...

7

Upload: others

Post on 27-Oct-2020

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

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