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 *

1031 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11725282)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study.
    Lee H; Ercoli C; Funkenbusch PD; Feng C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):107-13. PubMed ID: 18262011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of impression techniques and materials for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA; Chávez AM; Amaral AL; Compagnoni MA; Mollo Fde A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(4):771-6. PubMed ID: 20657873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. In vitro vertical misfit evaluation of cast frameworks for cement-retained implant-supported partial prostheses.
    Oyagüe RC; Turrión AS; Toledano M; Monticelli F; Osorio R
    J Dent; 2009 Jan; 37(1):52-8. PubMed ID: 18951675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effect of storage time on the accuracy and dimensional stability of reversible hydrocolloid impression material.
    Schleier PE; Gardner FM; Nelson SK; Pashley DH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Sep; 86(3):244-50. PubMed ID: 11552162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.
    Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Over-refractory casting technique as an alternative to one-piece multi-unit fixed partial denture frameworks.
    de Oliveira Correa G; Henriques GE; Mesquita MF; Sobrinho LC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Mar; 95(3):243-8. PubMed ID: 16543023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The effect of adding a stone base on the accuracy of working casts using different types of dental stone.
    Al-Abidi K; Ellakwa A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Sep; 7(4):17-28. PubMed ID: 16957787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Accuracy of impression techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA; Chávez AM; Compagnoni MA; Molo Fde A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(4):715-21. PubMed ID: 20657866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Impression techniques and misfit-induced strains on implant-supported superstructures: an in vitro study.
    Cehreli MC; Akça K
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2006 Aug; 26(4):379-85. PubMed ID: 16939020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of a new method to achieve optimal passivity of implant-supported superstructures.
    Goossens IC; Herbst D
    SADJ; 2003 Aug; 58(7):279-85, 287. PubMed ID: 14649041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The three-dimensional casting distortion of five implant-supported frameworks.
    Mitha T; Owen CP; Howes DG
    Int J Prosthodont; 2009; 22(3):248-50. PubMed ID: 19548406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. In vitro evaluation of reverse torque value of abutment screw and marginal opening in a screw- and cement-retained implant fixed partial denture design.
    Kim SG; Park JU; Jeong JH; Bae C; Bae TS; Chee W
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(6):1061-7. PubMed ID: 20162110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison of the accuracy of fit of 2 methods for fabricating implant-prosthodontic frameworks.
    Al-Fadda SA; Zarb GA; Finer Y
    Int J Prosthodont; 2007; 20(2):125-31. PubMed ID: 17455431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 52.