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 *

279 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22117708)

  • 1. An open system approach for surgical guide production.
    Abboud M; Orentlicher G
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2011 Dec; 69(12):e519-24. PubMed ID: 22117708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of a newly developed open-source system for dental implant planning.
    Dreiseidler T; Tandon D; Ritter L; Neugebauer J; Mischkowski RA; Scheer M; Zöller JE
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(1):128-37. PubMed ID: 22299089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accuracy of a laboratory-based computer implant guiding system.
    Barnea E; Alt I; Kolerman R; Nissan J
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 May; 109(5):e6-e10. PubMed ID: 20416521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Impact of operator experience on the accuracy of implant placement with stereolithographic surgical templates: an in vitro study.
    Cushen SE; Turkyilmaz I
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Apr; 109(4):248-54. PubMed ID: 23566606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of a newly developed integrated system for dental implant planning.
    Dreiseidler T; Neugebauer J; Ritter L; Lingohr T; Rothamel D; Mischkowski RA; Zöller JE
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2009 Nov; 20(11):1191-9. PubMed ID: 19681962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Software tools and surgical guides in dental-implant-guided surgery.
    Mora MA; Chenin DL; Arce RM
    Dent Clin North Am; 2014 Jul; 58(3):597-626. PubMed ID: 24993925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A clinically relevant validation method for implant placement after virtual planning.
    Verhamme LM; Meijer GJ; Boumans T; Schutyser F; Bergé SJ; Maal TJ
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Nov; 24(11):1265-72. PubMed ID: 22905668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A randomized clinical trial comparing guided implant surgery (bone- or mucosa-supported) with mental navigation or the use of a pilot-drill template.
    Vercruyssen M; Cox C; Coucke W; Naert I; Jacobs R; Quirynen M
    J Clin Periodontol; 2014 Jul; 41(7):717-23. PubMed ID: 24460748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy of three different types of stereolithographic surgical guide in implant placement: an in vitro study.
    Turbush SK; Turkyilmaz I
    J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Sep; 108(3):181-8. PubMed ID: 22944314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reliability of implant placement after virtual planning of implant positions using cone beam CT data and surgical (guide) templates.
    Nickenig HJ; Eitner S
    J Craniomaxillofac Surg; 2007; 35(4-5):207-11. PubMed ID: 17576068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and medical computed tomography: implications for clinical diagnostics with guided surgery.
    Abboud M; Calvo-Guirado JL; Orentlicher G; Wahl G
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(2):536-42. PubMed ID: 23527357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy of the match between cone beam computed tomography and model scan data in template-guided implant planning: A prospective controlled clinical study.
    Schnutenhaus S; Gröller S; Luthardt RG; Rudolph H
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2018 Aug; 20(4):541-549. PubMed ID: 29691987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Clinical accuracy of flapless computer-guided surgery for implant placement in edentulous arches.
    Vieira DM; Sotto-Maior BS; Barros CA; Reis ES; Francischone CE
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(5):1347-51. PubMed ID: 24066327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The combination of digital surface scanners and cone beam computed tomography technology for guided implant surgery using 3Shape implant studio software: a case history report.
    Lanis A; Álvarez Del Canto O
    Int J Prosthodont; 2015; 28(2):169-78. PubMed ID: 25822304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of cone-beam and conventional multislice computed tomography for image-guided dental implant planning.
    Poeschl PW; Schmidt N; Guevara-Rojas G; Seemann R; Ewers R; Zipko HT; Schicho K
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Jan; 17(1):317-24. PubMed ID: 22411262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. CBCT device dependency on the transfer accuracy from computer-aided implantology procedures.
    Dreiseidler T; Tandon D; Kreppel M; Neugebauer J; Mischkowski RA; Zinser MJ; Zöller JE
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2012 Sep; 23(9):1089-97. PubMed ID: 22680780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Deformation of stereolithographically produced surgical guides: an observational case series report.
    Stumpel LJ
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 Jun; 14(3):442-53. PubMed ID: 20156227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Factors influencing transfer accuracy of cone beam CT-derived template-based implant placement.
    Behneke A; Burwinkel M; Behneke N
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2012 Apr; 23(4):416-23. PubMed ID: 22092586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of restoratively projected and surgically acceptable virtual implant position for mandibular overdentures.
    Scarfe W; Vaughn WS; Farman AG; Harris BT; Paris MM
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(1):111-8. PubMed ID: 22299087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Digitally designed surgical guides for placing extraoral implants in the mastoid area.
    Van der Meer WJ; Vissink A; Raghoebar GM; Visser A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(3):703-7. PubMed ID: 22616066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.