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 *

331 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22847854)

  • 1. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing.
    Güth JF; Keul C; Stimmelmayr M; Beuer F; Edelhoff D
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 May; 17(4):1201-8. PubMed ID: 22847854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Digital impressions in dentistry-accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop scanners.
    Runkel C; Güth JF; Erdelt K; Keul C
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Mar; 24(3):1249-1257. PubMed ID: 31302771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial.
    Ahrberg D; Lauer HC; Ahrberg M; Weigl P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Mar; 20(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 26070435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison.
    Keul C; Güth JF
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Feb; 24(2):735-745. PubMed ID: 31134345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems.
    Shembesh M; Ali A; Finkelman M; Weber HP; Zandparsa R
    J Prosthodont; 2017 Oct; 26(7):581-586. PubMed ID: 26855068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions.
    Lee SJ; Betensky RA; Gianneschi GE; Gallucci GO
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2015 Jun; 26(6):715-9. PubMed ID: 24720423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization.
    Güth JF; Runkel C; Beuer F; Stimmelmayr M; Edelhoff D; Keul C
    Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Jun; 21(5):1445-1455. PubMed ID: 27406138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data.
    Patzelt SB; Bishti S; Stampf S; Att W
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Nov; 145(11):1133-40. PubMed ID: 25359645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study.
    Vecsei B; Joós-Kovács G; Borbély J; Hermann P
    J Prosthodont Res; 2017 Apr; 61(2):177-184. PubMed ID: 27461088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of the fit of zirconia copings fabricated by direct and indirect digital scanning procedures.
    Lee B; Oh KC; Haam D; Lee JH; Moon HS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):225-231. PubMed ID: 29428522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro.
    Schaefer O; Decker M; Wittstock F; Kuepper H; Guentsch A
    J Dent; 2014 Jun; 42(6):677-83. PubMed ID: 24508541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods.
    Cho SH; Schaefer O; Thompson GA; Guentsch A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Apr; 113(4):310-5. PubMed ID: 25682531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual edentulous casts created by laboratory impression scan protocols.
    Peng L; Chen L; Harris BT; Bhandari B; Morton D; Lin WS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):389-395. PubMed ID: 29703675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.
    Flügge TV; Schlager S; Nelson K; Nahles S; Metzger MC
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Sep; 144(3):471-8. PubMed ID: 23992820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow.
    Seelbach P; Brueckel C; Wöstmann B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Sep; 17(7):1759-64. PubMed ID: 23086333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.