695 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21631595)
1. Accuracy of implant casts generated with splinted and non-splinted impression techniques for edentulous patients: an optical scanning study.
Papaspyridakos P; Benic GI; Hogsett VL; White GS; Lal K; Gallucci GO
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2012 Jun; 23(6):676-681. PubMed ID: 21631595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques on the accuracy of fit of fixed implant prostheses in edentulous patients: a comparative study.
Papaspyridakos P; Lal K; White GS; Weber HP; Gallucci GO
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(6):1267-72. PubMed ID: 22167432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit.
Papaspyridakos P; Hirayama H; Chen CJ; Ho CH; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Sep; 27(9):1099-105. PubMed ID: 26374268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of the three-dimensional accuracy of implant impression techniques in two simulated clinical conditions by optical scanning.
Sabouhi M; Bajoghli F; Abolhasani M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(1):26-34. PubMed ID: 25506645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Verification jig for implant-supported prostheses: A comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials.
De La Cruz JE; Funkenbusch PD; Ercoli C; Moss ME; Graser GN; Tallents RH
J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Sep; 88(3):329-36. PubMed ID: 12426505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.
Papaspyridakos P; Gallucci GO; Chen CJ; Hanssen S; Naert I; Vandenberghe B
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Apr; 27(4):465-72. PubMed ID: 25682892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Evaluation of accuracy of multiple dental implant impressions using various splinting materials.
Hariharan R; Shankar C; Rajan M; Baig MR; Azhagarasan NS
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(1):38-44. PubMed ID: 20209185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The influence of verification jig on framework fit for nonsegmented fixed implant-supported complete denture.
Ercoli C; Geminiani A; Feng C; Lee H
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 May; 14 Suppl 1():e188-95. PubMed ID: 22176765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts.
Buda M; Bratos M; Sorensen JA
J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):913-918. PubMed ID: 29961627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Implant Impression Techniques for the Edentulous Jaw: A Summary of Three Studies.
Stimmelmayr M; Beuer F; Edelhoff D; Güth JF
J Prosthodont; 2016 Feb; 25(2):146-50. PubMed ID: 26032581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Prosthesis accuracy of fit on 3D-printed casts versus stone casts: A comparative study in the anterior maxilla.
Abdeen L; Chen YW; Kostagianni A; Finkelman M; Papathanasiou A; Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2022 Dec; 34(8):1238-1246. PubMed ID: 36415927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Evaluating the Effect of Different Impression Techniques and Splinting Methods on the Dimensional Accuracy of Multiple Implant Impressions: An in vitro Study.
Saini HS; Jain S; Kumar S; Aggarwal R; Choudhary S; Reddy NK
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Aug; 19(8):1005-1012. PubMed ID: 30150505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study.
Alshawaf B; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):835-842. PubMed ID: 29926977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach.
Stimmelmayr M; Erdelt K; Güth JF; Happe A; Beuer F
Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Aug; 16(4):1137-42. PubMed ID: 22009182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
