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 *

202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1624625)

  • 21. The effect of using custom or stock trays on the accuracy of gypsum casts.
    Rueda LJ; Sy-Muñoz JT; Naylor WP; Goodacre CJ; Swartz ML
    Int J Prosthodont; 1996; 9(4):367-73. PubMed ID: 8957875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Accuracy of complete-arch implant impression made with occlusal registration material.
    Papazoglou E; Wee AG; Carr AB; Urban I; Margaritis V
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):143-148. PubMed ID: 31079882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Evaluation of dental arch reproduction using three-dimensional optical digitization.
    Brosky ME; Major RJ; DeLong R; Hodges JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Nov; 90(5):434-40. PubMed ID: 14586306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. [Accuracy of complete dental arch impressions and stone casts using a three-dimensional measurement system. Effect on accuracy of rubber impression materials and trays].
    Ishida K
    Nihon Hotetsu Shika Gakkai Zasshi; 1989 Aug; 33(4):977-90. PubMed ID: 2489749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of the accuracy of plastic and metal stock trays for implant impressions.
    Del'acqua MA; de Avila ÉD; Amaral ÂL; Pinelli LA; de Assis Mollo F
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(3):544-50. PubMed ID: 22616047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Accuracy of complete dental arch impressions and stone casts using a three-dimensional measurement system. Effects on accuracy of rubber impression materials and trays.
    Ishida K
    Dent Jpn (Tokyo); 1990; 27(1):73-9. PubMed ID: 2099294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Working times and dimensional accuracy of the one-step putty/wash impression technique.
    Richards MW; Zeiaei S; Bagby MD; Okubo S; Soltani J
    J Prosthodont; 1998 Dec; 7(4):250-5. PubMed ID: 10196845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy of Three Different Impression Materials Using Three Different Techniques for Implant Impressions: An
    Khan SA; Singh S; Neyaz N; Jaiswal MM; Tanwar AS; Singh A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2021 Feb; 22(2):172-178. PubMed ID: 34257178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Distortion of disposable plastic stock trays when used with putty vinyl polysiloxane impression materials.
    Cho GC; Chee WW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2004 Oct; 92(4):354-8. PubMed ID: 15507908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A clinical study comparing the three-dimensional accuracy of a working die generated from two dual-arch trays and a complete-arch custom tray.
    Ceyhan JA; Johnson GH; Lepe X; Phillips KM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Sep; 90(3):228-34. PubMed ID: 12942055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study.
    Lin WS; Harris BT; Elathamna EN; Abdel-Azim T; Morton D
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(1):102-9. PubMed ID: 25615919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Accuracy of impressions with different impression materials in angulated implants.
    Reddy S; Prasad K; Vakil H; Jain A; Chowdhary R
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2013; 16(3):279-84. PubMed ID: 23771446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The influence of impression trays on the accuracy of stone casts poured from irreversible hydrocolloid impressions.
    Mendez AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 1985 Sep; 54(3):383-8. PubMed ID: 3906093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. An alternative putty/wash impression technique.
    Bassi GS
    Dent Update; 2000 Oct; 27(8):376-8. PubMed ID: 11218529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays.
    Johnson GH; Mancl LA; Schwedhelm ER; Verhoef DR; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Jan; 103(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 20105676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The influence of tray type and other variables on the palatal depth of casts made from irreversible hydrocolloid impressions.
    Frank RP; Thielke SM; Johnson GH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Jan; 87(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 11807479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: a review of properties and techniques.
    Chee WW; Donovan TE
    J Prosthet Dent; 1992 Nov; 68(5):728-32. PubMed ID: 1432791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.