374 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22176765)
1. 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]
2. A comparative study of the accuracy between plastic and metal impression transfer copings for implant restorations.
Fernandez MA; Paez de Mendoza CY; Platt JA; Levon JA; Hovijitra ST; Nimmo A
J Prosthodont; 2013 Jul; 22(5):367-76. PubMed ID: 23387412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. The effect of different restorative and abutment materials on marginal and internal adaptation of three-unit cantilever implant-supported fixed partial dentures: an in vitro study.
Kahramanoğlu E; Kulak-Özkan Y
J Prosthodont; 2013 Dec; 22(8):608-17. PubMed ID: 23725094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A method to improve passive fit of frameworks on implant-supported prostheses: an in vivo study.
Manzella C; Burello V; Bignardi C; Carossa S; Schierano G
Int J Prosthodont; 2013; 26(6):577-9. PubMed ID: 24179974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Simplified fabrication of an implant-supported framework with luted abutment cylinders.
Stumpel LJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Jul; 118(1):5-9. PubMed ID: 28024820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A three-appointment alternative treatment protocol for fabricating an implant-supported milled bar overdenture.
Lin WS; Ozdemir E; Morton D
J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Feb; 107(2):75-9. PubMed ID: 22304740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A technique for verifying and correcting a milled polyurethane definitive cast for nonsegmental implant restoration in an edentulous jaw.
Lin WS; Harris BT; Metz MJ; Morton D
J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Sep; 112(3):658-62. PubMed ID: 24836533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of impression techniques and materials for an implant-supported prosthesis.
Del'Acqua MA; Chávez AM; Amaral AL; Compagnoni MA; Mollo Fde A
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(4):771-6. PubMed ID: 20657873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Accuracy of different impression techniques for internal-connection implants.
Lee YJ; Heo SJ; Koak JY; Kim SK
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(5):823-30. PubMed ID: 19865622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A comparison of the accuracy of fit of 2 methods for fabricating implant-prosthodontic frameworks.
Al-Fadda SA; Zarb GA; Finer Y
Int J Prosthodont; 2007; 20(2):125-31. PubMed ID: 17455431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Retrievable metal ceramic implant-supported fixed prostheses with milled titanium frameworks and all-ceramic crowns: retrospective clinical study with up to 10 years of follow-up.
Maló P; de Araújo Nobre M; Borges J; Almeida R
J Prosthodont; 2012 Jun; 21(4):256-64. PubMed ID: 22339902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Use of digital data acquisition and CAD/CAM technology for the fabrication of a fixed complete dental prosthesis on dental implants.
Lin WS; Harris BT; Zandinejad A; Morton D
J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Jan; 111(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 24189115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Comparisons of precision of fit between cast and CNC-milled titanium implant frameworks for the edentulous mandible.
Ortorp A; Jemt T; Bäck T; Jälevik T
Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(2):194-200. PubMed ID: 12737254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A method for fabrication of implant-supported fixed partial dentures.
Zafiropoulos GG; Hoffmann O; Deli G
J Oral Implantol; 2014 Jun; 40(3):271-9. PubMed ID: 24914913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Intraoral framework pick-up technique to improve fit of a metal-resin implant prosthesis.
Baig MR; Gunaseelan R
Indian J Dent Res; 2012; 23(3):435-6. PubMed ID: 23059598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A comparison of fit of CNC-milled titanium and zirconia frameworks to implants.
Abduo J; Lyons K; Waddell N; Bennani V; Swain M
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 May; 14 Suppl 1():e20-9. PubMed ID: 21414138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
