These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

216 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10635155)

  • 1. Evaluation of the implant master cast by means of the Periotest method.
    May KB; Curtis A; Wang RF
    Implant Dent; 1999; 8(2):133-40. PubMed ID: 10635155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Fit of implant-supported fixed prostheses fabricated on master casts made from a dental stone and a dental plaster.
    Wise M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Nov; 86(5):532-8. PubMed ID: 11725282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions.
    Vigolo P; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):186-92. PubMed ID: 12616240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Implant cast accuracy as a function of impression techniques and impression material viscosity.
    Walker MP; Ries D; Borello B
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(4):669-74. PubMed ID: 18807563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Influence of the implant abutment on the Periotest value: an in vivo study.
    Gomez-Roman G; Lukas D
    Quintessence Int; 2001; 32(10):797-9. PubMed ID: 11820048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Mechanical state assessment of the implant-bone continuum: a better understanding of the Periotest method.
    Tricio J; Laohapand P; van Steenberghe D; Quirynen M; Naert I
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1995; 10(1):43-9. PubMed ID: 7615316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Master cast accuracy in single-tooth implant replacement cases: an in vitro comparison. A technical note.
    Vigolo P; Fonzi F; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2005; 20(3):455-60. PubMed ID: 15973958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. In vivo measurements of precision of fit involving implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw.
    Jemt T
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1996; 11(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 8666445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Periotest method: implant-supported framework precision of fit evaluation.
    May KB; Edge MJ; Lang BR; Wang RF
    J Prosthodont; 1996 Sep; 5(3):206-13. PubMed ID: 9028226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA; Arioli-Filho JN; Compagnoni MA; Mollo Fde A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(2):226-36. PubMed ID: 18548918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of master cast techniques for multiple abutment implant prostheses.
    Vigolo P; Millstein PL
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1993; 8(4):439-46. PubMed ID: 8270314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques on the accuracy of fit of fixed implant prostheses in edentulous patients: a comparative study.
    Papaspyridakos P; Lal K; White GS; Weber HP; Gallucci GO
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(6):1267-72. PubMed ID: 22167432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Measurement of dental implant stability by resonance frequency analysis and damping capacity assessment: comparison of both techniques in a clinical trial.
    Zix J; Hug S; Kessler-Liechti G; Mericske-Stern R
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(3):525-30. PubMed ID: 18700378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Relationship between contact time measurements and PTV values when using the Periotest to measure implant stability.
    Meredith N; Friberg B; Sennerby L; Aparicio C
    Int J Prosthodont; 1998; 11(3):269-75. PubMed ID: 9728122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The use of the Periotest value as the initial success criteria of an implant: 8-year report.
    Aparicio C
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 1997 Apr; 17(2):150-61. PubMed ID: 9497709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The suitability of head-of-implant and conventional abutment impression techniques for implant-retained three unit bridges: an in vitro study.
    Bartlett DW; Greenwood R; Howe L
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2002 Dec; 10(4):163-6. PubMed ID: 12526273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A classification system to measure the implant-abutment microgap.
    Kano SC; Binon PP; Curtis DA
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2007; 22(6):879-85. PubMed ID: 18271368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Accuracy of impressions and casts using different implant impression techniques in a multi-implant system with an internal hex connection.
    Wenz HJ; Hertrampf K
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(1):39-47. PubMed ID: 18416411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Periotest method: implant-supported framework fit evaluation in vivo.
    May KB; Lang BR; Lang BE; Wang RF
    J Prosthet Dent; 1998 Jun; 79(6):648-57. PubMed ID: 9627893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cyclic loading of implant-supported prostheses: comparison of gaps at the prosthetic-abutment interface when cycled abutments are replaced with as-manufactured abutments.
    Hecker DM; Eckert SE; Choi YG
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Jan; 95(1):26-32. PubMed ID: 16399272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.