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 *

651 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12004656)

  • 1. Issues in handling impression materials.
    Giordano R
    Gen Dent; 2000; 48(6):646-8. PubMed ID: 12004656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time.
    Thongthammachat S; Moore BK; Barco MT; Hovijitra S; Brown DT; Andres CJ
    J Prosthodont; 2002 Jun; 11(2):98-108. PubMed ID: 12087547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: an in vitro study.
    Caputi S; Varvara G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Apr; 99(4):274-81. PubMed ID: 18395537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Influence of tray rigidity and impression technique on accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions.
    Hoyos A; Soderholm KJ
    Int J Prosthodont; 2011; 24(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 21210004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The influence of implant placement depth and impression material on the stability of an open tray impression coping.
    Linkevicius T; Svediene O; Vindasiute E; Puisys A; Linkeviciene L
    J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Oct; 108(4):238-43. PubMed ID: 23031730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Pre- and post-set hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials.
    Michalakis KX; Bakopoulou A; Hirayama H; Garefis DP; Garefis PD
    J Prosthodont; 2007; 16(4):238-48. PubMed ID: 17559537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy of implant impressions with different impression coping types and shapes.
    Rashidan N; Alikhasi M; Samadizadeh S; Beyabanaki E; Kharazifard MJ
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 Apr; 14(2):218-25. PubMed ID: 19804420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions.
    Wee AG
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Mar; 83(3):323-31. PubMed ID: 10709042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Factors affecting the accuracy of elastometric impression materials.
    Chen SY; Liang WM; Chen FN
    J Dent; 2004 Nov; 32(8):603-9. PubMed ID: 15476954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Changes in properties of nonaqueous elastomeric impression materials after storage of components.
    Hondrum SO
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Jan; 85(1):73-81. PubMed ID: 11174682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Gingival sulcus simulation model for evaluating the penetration characteristics of elastomeric impression materials.
    Aimjirakul P; Masuda T; Takahashi H; Miura H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(4):385-9. PubMed ID: 12956493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions.
    Ceyhan JA; Johnson GH; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Aug; 90(2):143-9. PubMed ID: 12886207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of dimensional accuracy between three different addition cured silicone impression materials.
    Forrester-Baker L; Seymour KG; Samarawickrama D; Zou L; Cherukara G; Patel M
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2005 Jun; 13(2):69-74. PubMed ID: 16011234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of the accuracy of polyether, polyvinyl siloxane, and plaster impressions for long-span implant-supported prostheses.
    Hoods-Moonsammy VJ; Owen P; Howes DG
    Int J Prosthodont; 2014; 27(5):433-8. PubMed ID: 25191885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 33.