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 *

615 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21657122)

  • 1. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2011; 14(1):11-21. PubMed ID: 21657122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2013; 16(1):11-21. PubMed ID: 23641661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions for Whole Upper Jaws, Including Full Dentitions and Palatal Soft Tissues.
    Gan N; Xiong Y; Jiao T
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(7):e0158800. PubMed ID: 27383409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    Quintessence Int; 2015 Jan; 46(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 25019118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions.
    Albayrak B; Sukotjo C; Wee AG; Korkmaz İH; Bayındır F
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Feb; 30(2):163-170. PubMed ID: 32935894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.
    Ender A; Zimmermann M; Attin T; Mehl A
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Sep; 20(7):1495-504. PubMed ID: 26547869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions.
    Ender A; Attin T; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Mar; 115(3):313-20. PubMed ID: 26548890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.
    Ender A; Zimmermann M; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2019; 22(1):11-19. PubMed ID: 30848250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients.
    Kuhr F; Schmidt A; Rehmann P; Wöstmann B
    J Dent; 2016 Dec; 55():68-74. PubMed ID: 27717754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance.
    Grünheid T; McCarthy SD; Larson BE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Nov; 146(5):673-82. PubMed ID: 25439218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Comparative analysis of 3D data accuracy of single tooth and full dental arch captured by different intraoral and laboratory digital impression systems].
    Ryakhovskiy AN; Kostyukova VV
    Stomatologiia (Mosk); 2016; 95(4):65-70. PubMed ID: 27636766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques.
    Malik J; Rodriguez J; Weisbloom M; Petridis H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(2):107-113. PubMed ID: 29518805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance.
    Atieh MA; Ritter AV; Ko CC; Duqum I
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):400-405. PubMed ID: 28222869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.
    Renne W; Ludlow M; Fryml J; Schurch Z; Mennito A; Kessler R; Lauer A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Jul; 118(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 28024822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner.
    Müller P; Ender A; Joda T; Katsoulis J
    Quintessence Int; 2016 Apr; 47(4):343-9. PubMed ID: 26824085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner.
    Mennito AS; Evans ZP; Nash J; Bocklet C; Lauer Kelly A; Bacro T; Cayouette M; Ludlow M; Renne WG
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2019 Jul; 31(4):369-377. PubMed ID: 31058428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Photogrammetry and conventional impressions for recording implant positions: a comparative laboratory study.
    Ortorp A; Jemt T; Bäck T
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2005; 7(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15903174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis.
    Nedelcu RG; Persson AS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Dec; 112(6):1461-71. PubMed ID: 25134995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of trueness and precision of two intraoral scanners and a conventional impression: an in vivo clinical study.
    Jorquera GJ; Sampaio CS; Bozzalla A; Hirata R; Sánchez JP
    Quintessence Int; 2021 Oct; 52(10):904-910. PubMed ID: 34410071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 31.