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 *

1034 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16011234)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Accuracy of three implant impression techniques with different impression materials and stones.
    Chang WG; Vahidi F; Bae KH; Lim BS
    Int J Prosthodont; 2012; 25(1):44-7. PubMed ID: 22259795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Effect of measurement site on the dimensional accuracy of die-forming materials and techniques.
    Petrie CS; Walker MP; Theodotou N; Glaros AG; Williams K
    Gen Dent; 2004; 52(3):228-32. PubMed ID: 15206253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Experimental study on the use of spacer foils in two-step putty and wash impression procedures using silicone impression materials.
    Mann K; Davids A; Range U; Richter G; Boening K; Reitemeier B
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Apr; 113(4):316-22. PubMed ID: 25453563
    [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 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. Detail reproduction, contact angles, and die hardness of elastomeric impression and gypsum die material combinations.
    Ragain JC; Grosko ML; Raj M; Ryan TN; Johnston WM
    Int J Prosthodont; 2000; 13(3):214-20. PubMed ID: 11203635
    [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. Randomized controlled clinical study on the accuracy of two-stage putty-and-wash impression materials.
    Haim M; Luthardt RG; Rudolph H; Koch R; Walter MH; Quaas S
    Int J Prosthodont; 2009; 22(3):296-302. PubMed ID: 19548415
    [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. 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]  

  • 20. Type IV gypsum compatibility with five addition-reaction silicone impression materials.
    Butta R; Tredwin CJ; Nesbit M; Moles DR
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Jun; 93(6):540-4. PubMed ID: 15942614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 52.