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 *

230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15903174)

  • 1. Photogrammetry and conventional impressions for recording implant positions: a comparative laboratory study.
    Ortorp A; Jemt T; Bäck T
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2005; 7(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15903174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.
    Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Mancl L; Brudvik JS; Raigrodski AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Oct; 110(4):243-51. PubMed ID: 24079558
    [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. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses.
    Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses.
    Vigolo P; Fonzi F; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2004 Nov; 92(5):470-6. PubMed ID: 15523336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine.
    Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure.
    Menini M; Setti P; Pera F; Pera P; Pesce P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Apr; 22(3):1253-1262. PubMed ID: 28965251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Evaluation of the precision of three implant transfer impression techniques using two elastomeric impression materials.
    Mostafa TM; Elgendy MN; Kashef NA; Halim MM
    Int J Prosthodont; 2010; 23(6):525-8. PubMed ID: 21209987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2011; 14(1):11-21. PubMed ID: 21657122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays.
    Burns J; Palmer R; Howe L; Wilson R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Mar; 89(3):250-5. PubMed ID: 12644799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Evaluation of accuracy of casts of multiple internal connection implant prosthesis obtained from different impression materials and techniques: an in vitro study.
    Pujari M; Garg P; Prithviraj DR
    J Oral Implantol; 2014 Apr; 40(2):137-45. PubMed ID: 24456531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Different implant impression techniques for edentulous patients treated with CAD/CAM complete-arch prostheses: a randomised controlled trial reporting data at 3 year post-loading.
    Pozzi A; Tallarico M; Mangani F; Barlattani A
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2013; 6(4):325-40. PubMed ID: 24570979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.