511 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14649041)
1. 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]
2. Static implant loading caused by as-cast metal and ceramic-veneered superstructures.
Karl M; Rosch S; Graef F; Taylor TD; Heckmann SM
J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Apr; 93(4):324-30. PubMed ID: 15798682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis.
Watanabe F; Uno I; Hata Y; Neuendorff G; Kirsch A
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2000; 15(2):209-18. PubMed ID: 10795453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Improving the fit of implant-supported superstructures using the spark erosion technique.
Eisenmann E; Mokabberi A; Walter MH; Freesmeyer WB
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2004; 19(6):810-8. PubMed ID: 15623055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Marginal fit of cemented and screw-retained crowns incorporated on the Straumann (ITI) Dental Implant System: an in vitro study.
Tosches NA; Brägger U; Lang NP
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2009 Jan; 20(1):79-86. PubMed ID: 19126111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Dimensional accuracy analysis of implant framework castings from 2 casting systems.
Chang TL; Maruyama C; White SN; Son S; Caputo AA
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2005; 20(5):720-5. PubMed ID: 16274145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant-abutment interface: joint opening in wide-diameter versus standard-diameter hex-type implants.
Hoyer SA; Stanford CM; Buranadham S; Fridrich T; Wagner J; Gratton D
J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Jun; 85(6):599-607. PubMed ID: 11404760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Accuracy of three corrective techniques for implant bar fabrication.
Romero GG; Engelmeier R; Powers JM; Canterbury AA
J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Dec; 84(6):602-7. PubMed ID: 11125345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Fracture resistance and failure location of zirconium and metallic implant abutments.
Aramouni P; Zebouni E; Tashkandi E; Dib S; Salameh Z; Almas K
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 Nov; 9(7):41-8. PubMed ID: 18997915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Fit of implant frameworks: an in vitro comparison between two fabrication techniques.
Takahashi T; Gunne J
J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Mar; 89(3):256-60. PubMed ID: 12644800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. In vitro retentive strength of metal superstructures cemented to solid abutments.
Rappelli G; Corso M; Coccia E; Camaioni E; Di Felice R; Procaccini M
Minerva Stomatol; 2008 Mar; 57(3):95-101. PubMed ID: 18427377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An in vitro load evaluation of a conical implant system with 2 abutment designs and 3 different retaining-screw alloys.
Erneklint C; Odman P; Ortengren U; Karlsson S
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2006; 21(5):733-7. PubMed ID: 17066634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Preloads generated with repeated tightening in three types of screws used in dental implant assemblies.
Byrne D; Jacobs S; O'Connell B; Houston F; Claffey N
J Prosthodont; 2006; 15(3):164-71. PubMed ID: 16681498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A study on the fracture strength of implant-supported restorations using milled ceramic abutments and all-ceramic crowns.
Cho HW; Dong JK; Jin TH; Oh SC; Lee HH; Lee JW
Int J Prosthodont; 2002; 15(1):9-13. PubMed ID: 11887605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Marginal discrepancy of screw-retained and cemented metal-ceramic crowns on implants abutments.
Keith SE; Miller BH; Woody RD; Higginbottom FL
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1999; 14(3):369-78. PubMed ID: 10379110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
