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 *

254 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22009182)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Clinical study evaluating the discrepancy of two different impression techniques of four implants in an edentulous jaw.
    Stimmelmayr M; Güth JF; Erdelt K; Happe A; Schlee M; Beuer F
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Nov; 17(8):1929-35. PubMed ID: 23224041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Digital evaluation of the accuracy of impression techniques and materials in angulated implants.
    Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S; Ozan O; Ozcelik TB; Yagiz A
    J Dent; 2014 Dec; 42(12):1551-9. PubMed ID: 25446736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.
    Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Mancl L; Brudvik JS; Raigrodski AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Oct; 110(4):243-51. PubMed ID: 24079558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.
    Amin S; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Nov; 28(11):1360-1367. PubMed ID: 28039903
    [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. 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]  

  • 15. In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings.
    Conejo J; Yoo TH; Atria PJ; Fraiman H; Blatz MB
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Mar; 131(3):475.e1-475.e7. PubMed ID: 38182453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Passive fit and accuracy of three dental implant impression techniques.
    Al Quran FA; Rashdan BA; Zomar AA; Weiner S
    Quintessence Int; 2012 Feb; 43(2):119-25. PubMed ID: 22257873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. In Vitro Implant Impression Accuracy Using a New Photopolymerizing SDR Splinting Material.
    Di Fiore A; Meneghello R; Savio G; Sivolella S; Katsoulis J; Stellini E
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2015 Oct; 17 Suppl 2():e721-9. PubMed ID: 25782045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Digital evaluation of the dimensional accuracy of four different implant impression techniques.
    Ozcelik TB; Ozcan I; Ozan O
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1247-1253. PubMed ID: 30297554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.