191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22670250)
21. Tooth-implant-supported posterior fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks: 3-year clinical result.
Beuer F; Sachs C; Groesser J; Gueth JF; Stimmelmayr M
Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Jun; 20(5):1079-86. PubMed ID: 26399980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization--a laboratory study.
Keul C; Stawarczyk B; Erdelt KJ; Beuer F; Edelhoff D; Güth JF
Dent Mater; 2014 Apr; 30(4):400-7. PubMed ID: 24522150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Load-bearing capacity of artificially aged zirconia fixed dental prostheses with heterogeneous abutment supports.
Sarafidou K; Stiesch M; Dittmer MP; Jörn D; Borchers L; Kohorst P
Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Jun; 16(3):961-8. PubMed ID: 21607567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Strain development in 3-unit implant-supported CAD/CAM restorations.
Karl M; Wichmann MG; Heckmann SM; Krafft T
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(4):648-52. PubMed ID: 18807560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Static implant loading caused by as-cast metal and ceramic-veneered superstructures.
Karl M; Rosch S; Graef F; Taylor TD; Heckmann SM
J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Apr; 93(4):324-30. PubMed ID: 15798682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Torque loss under mechanical cycling of long-span zirconia and titanium-cemented and screw-retained implant-supported CAD/CAM frameworks.
Gomes ÉA; Tiossi R; Faria AC; Rodrigues RC; Ribeiro RF
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2014 Dec; 25(12):1395-402. PubMed ID: 25539006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Fit of implant-supported fixed prostheses fabricated on master casts made from a dental stone and a dental plaster.
Wise M
J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Nov; 86(5):532-8. PubMed ID: 11725282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Interproximal distance analysis of stereolithographic casts made by CAD-CAM technology: An in vitro study.
Hoffman M; Cho SH; Bansal NK
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Nov; 118(5):624-630. PubMed ID: 28477918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. In vitro study on passive fit in implant-supported 5-unit fixed partial dentures.
Karl M; Winter W; Taylor TD; Heckmann SM
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2004; 19(1):30-7. PubMed ID: 14982352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Photogrammetry--an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study.
Jemt T; Bäck T; Petersson A
Int J Prosthodont; 1999; 12(4):363-8. PubMed ID: 10635208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Passivity of Fit of a Novel Prefabricated Implant-Supported Mandibular Full-Arch Reconstruction: A Comparative In Vitro Study.
Karl M; Carretta R; Higuchi KW
Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(5):440–442. PubMed ID: 29772033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Marginal and internal fit of five-unit zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses fabricated with digital scans and conventional impressions: A comparative in vitro study.
Bandiaky ON; Clouet R; Le Bars P; Soueidan A; Le Guehennec L
J Prosthodont; 2023 Dec; 32(9):846-853. PubMed ID: 36627825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Fracture behavior of all-ceramic, implant-supported, and tooth-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.
Alkharrat AR; Schmitter M; Rues S; Rammelsberg P
Clin Oral Investig; 2018 May; 22(4):1663-1673. PubMed ID: 29196948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions.
Ueda K; Beuer F; Stimmelmayr M; Erdelt K; Keul C; Güth JF
Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Mar; 20(2):283-9. PubMed ID: 26121970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Volumetric misfit in CAD/CAM and cast implant frameworks: a university laboratory study.
Almasri R; Drago CJ; Siegel SC; Hardigan PC
J Prosthodont; 2011 Jun; 20(4):267-74. PubMed ID: 21492296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions.
Vigolo P; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):186-92. PubMed ID: 12616240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Marginal and internal fit of curved anterior CAD/CAM-milled zirconia fixed dental prostheses: an in-vitro study.
Büchi DL; Ebler S; Hämmerle CH; Sailer I
Quintessence Int; 2014; 45(10):837-46. PubMed ID: 25126636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
