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 *

757 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18717085)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Accuracy of implant impression splinted techniques: effect of splinting material.
    Assif D; Nissan J; Varsano I; Singer A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1999; 14(6):885-8. PubMed ID: 10612928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Comparative study of the polyvinyl siloxane technique with resin-splinted transfer copings used for multiple implant abutment impressions.
    Ferreira VF; Barboza EP; Gouvêa CV; Bianchini GM; Mussallem F; Carvalho WR
    Implant Dent; 2012 Feb; 21(1):72-6. PubMed ID: 22214989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA; Arioli-Filho JN; Compagnoni MA; Mollo Fde A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(2):226-36. PubMed ID: 18548918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Influence of impression material and time on the 3-dimensional accuracy of implant impressions.
    Holst S; Blatz MB; Bergler M; Goellner M; Wichmann M
    Quintessence Int; 2007 Jan; 38(1):67-73. PubMed ID: 17216911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A clinical comparison of two vinyl polysiloxane impression materials using the one-step technique.
    Raigrodski AJ; Dogan S; Mancl LA; Heindl H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Sep; 102(3):179-86. PubMed ID: 19703625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effects of implant angulation, material selection, and impression technique on impression accuracy: a preliminary laboratory study.
    Rutkunas V; Sveikata K; Savickas R
    Int J Prosthodont; 2012; 25(5):512-5. PubMed ID: 22930776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Three-dimensional analysis of dual-arch impression trays.
    Cayouette MJ; Burgess JO; Jones RE; Yuan CH
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Mar; 34(3):189-98. PubMed ID: 12731600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Accuracy of the newly formulated vinyl siloxanether elastomeric impression material.
    Stober T; Johnson GH; Schmitter M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Apr; 103(4):228-39. PubMed ID: 20362766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. The suitability of head-of-implant and conventional abutment impression techniques for implant-retained three unit bridges: an in vitro study.
    Bartlett DW; Greenwood R; Howe L
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2002 Dec; 10(4):163-6. PubMed ID: 12526273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Accuracy of various impression materials and methods for two implant systems: An effect size study.
    Schmidt A; Häussling T; Rehmann P; Schaaf H; Wöstmann B
    J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Apr; 62(2):245-251. PubMed ID: 29191609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Working time of elastomeric impression materials: relevance of rheological tests.
    Balkenhol M; Kanehira M; Finger WJ; Wöstmann B
    Am J Dent; 2007 Dec; 20(6):347-52. PubMed ID: 18269123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Accuracy of newly formulated fast-setting elastomeric impression materials.
    Wadhwani CP; Johnson GH; Lepe X; Raigrodski AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Jun; 93(6):530-9. PubMed ID: 15942613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Accuracy of casts generated from dual-arch impressions.
    Breeding LC; Dixon DL
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Oct; 84(4):403-7. PubMed ID: 11044846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants.
    Conrad HJ; Pesun IJ; DeLong R; Hodges JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Jun; 97(6):349-56. PubMed ID: 17618917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 38.