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 *

195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21647591)

  • 1. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit--an in vitro study.
    Stimmelmayr M; Güth JF; Erdelt K; Edelhoff D; Beuer F
    Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Jun; 16(3):851-6. PubMed ID: 21647591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Precision of Dental Implant Digitization Using Intraoral Scanners.
    Flügge TV; Att W; Metzger MC; Nelson K
    Int J Prosthodont; 2016; 29(3):277-83. PubMed ID: 27148990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of Multiple Use of Impression Copings and Scanbodies on Implant Cast Accuracy.
    Sawyers J; Baig MR; El-Masoud B
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(4):891–898. PubMed ID: 31107939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with or without scanbody splinting: An in vitro study.
    Pozzi A; Arcuri L; Lio F; Papa A; Nardi A; Londono J
    J Dent; 2022 Apr; 119():104072. PubMed ID: 35189313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. In vitro fit of CAD-CAM complete arch screw-retained titanium and zirconia implant prostheses fabricated on 4 implants.
    Al-Meraikhi H; Yilmaz B; McGlumphy E; Brantley W; Johnston WM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Mar; 119(3):409-416. PubMed ID: 28720339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A fully digital approach to replicate functional and aesthetic parameters in implant-supported full-arch rehabilitation.
    Monaco C; Ragazzini N; Scheda L; Evangelisti E
    J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Jul; 62(3):383-385. PubMed ID: 29191608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Precision of fit of implant-supported screw-retained 10-unit computer-aided-designed and computer-aided-manufactured frameworks made from zirconium dioxide and titanium: an in vitro study.
    Katsoulis J; Mericske-Stern R; Rotkina L; Zbären C; Enkling N; Blatz MB
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2014 Feb; 25(2):165-74. PubMed ID: 23025489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Precision and Accuracy of a Digital Impression Scanner in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation.
    Pesce P; Pera F; Setti P; Menini M
    Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(2):171-175. PubMed ID: 29518813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Effect of intraoral scanning on the passivity of fit of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.
    Karl M; Graef F; Schubinski P; Taylor T
    Quintessence Int; 2012; 43(7):555-62. PubMed ID: 22670250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing.
    Güth JF; Keul C; Stimmelmayr M; Beuer F; Edelhoff D
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 May; 17(4):1201-8. PubMed ID: 22847854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy of impression scanning compared with stone casts of implant impressions.
    Matta RE; Adler W; Wichmann M; Heckmann SM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Apr; 117(4):507-512. PubMed ID: 27881327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of material selection on the passivity of fit of implant-supported restorations created with computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture.
    Karl M; Taylor TD
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(4):739-45. PubMed ID: 21841982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Discrepancy of complete-arch titanium frameworks manufactured using selective laser melting and electron beam melting additive manufacturing technologies.
    Revilla-León M; Ceballos L; Martínez-Klemm I; Özcan M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):942-947. PubMed ID: 30006219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Volumetric determination of the amount of misfit in CAD/CAM and cast implant frameworks: a multicenter laboratory study.
    Drago C; Saldarriaga RL; Domagala D; Almasri R
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(5):920-9. PubMed ID: 20862405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.