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 *

282 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19418862)

  • 1. Accuracy of impressions obtained with dual-arch trays.
    Wöstmann B; Rehmann P; Balkenhol M
    Int J Prosthodont; 2009; 22(2):158-60. PubMed ID: 19418862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparative study of inter-abutment distance of dies made from full arch dual-arch impression trays with those made from full arch stock trays: an in vitro study.
    Reddy JM; Prashanti E; Kumar GV; Suresh Sajjan MC; Mathew X
    Indian J Dent Res; 2009; 20(4):412-7. PubMed ID: 20139562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A preliminary survey of impression trays used in the fabrication of fixed indirect restorations.
    Mitchell ST; Ramp MH; Ramp LC; Liu PR
    J Prosthodont; 2009 Oct; 18(7):582-8. PubMed ID: 19523024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions.
    Ceyhan JA; Johnson GH; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Aug; 90(2):143-9. PubMed ID: 12886207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of second pour casts using dual-arch impressions.
    Schwartz RS; Davis RD
    Am J Dent; 1992 Aug; 5(4):192-4. PubMed ID: 1290607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The accuracy of dual-arch impressions: a pilot study.
    Larson TD; Nielsen MA; Brackett WW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Jun; 87(6):625-7. PubMed ID: 12131884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accuracy of a reformulated fast-set vinyl polysiloxane impression material using dual-arch trays.
    Kang AH; Johnson GH; Lepe X; Wataha JC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 May; 101(5):332-41. PubMed ID: 19410067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The effect of impression volume and double-arch trays on the registration of maximum intercuspation.
    Hahn SM; Millstein PL; Kinnunen TH; Wright RF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Dec; 102(6):362-7. PubMed ID: 19961994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Dual-arch and custom tray impression accuracy.
    Davis RD; Schwartz RS
    Am J Dent; 1991 Apr; 4(2):89-92. PubMed ID: 1854447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. A clinical trial to compare double-arch and complete-arch impression techniques in the provision of indirect restorations.
    Lane DA; Randall RC; Lane NS; Wilson NH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):141-5. PubMed ID: 12616233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Comparative Evaluation of Accuracy of the Dies Affected by Tray Type, Material Viscosity, and Pouring Sequence of Dual and Single Arch Impressions- An In vitro Study.
    Kulkarni PR; Kulkarni RS; Shah RJ; Chhajlani R; Saklecha B; Maru K
    J Clin Diagn Res; 2017 Apr; 11(4):ZC128-ZC135. PubMed ID: 28571280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of a range of addition silicone putty-wash impression materials used in the one-stage technique.
    Abuasi HA; Wassell RW
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 1994 Mar; 2(3):117-22. PubMed ID: 7920403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Dimensional accuracy of 2-stage putty-wash impressions: influence of impression trays and viscosity.
    Balkenhol M; Ferger P; Wöstmann B
    Int J Prosthodont; 2007; 20(6):573-5. PubMed ID: 18069363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A practice-based assessment of the handling of a fast-setting polyvinyl siloxane impression material used with the dual-arch tray technique.
    Burke FJ; Crisp RJ
    Quintessence Int; 2001; 32(10):805-10. PubMed ID: 11820050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.