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 *

229 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22930776)

  • 41. Linear dimensional accuracy of a polyvinyl siloxane of varying viscosities using different impression techniques.
    Mishra S; Chowdhary R
    J Investig Clin Dent; 2010 Aug; 1(1):37-46. PubMed ID: 25427185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Dimensional accuracy of pickup implant impression: an in vitro comparison of novel modular versus standard custom trays.
    Simeone P; Valentini PP; Pizzoferrato R; Scudieri F
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(3):538-46. PubMed ID: 21691600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Accuracy of complete dental arch impressions and stone casts using a three-dimensional measurement system. Effects on accuracy of rubber impression materials and trays.
    Ishida K
    Dent Jpn (Tokyo); 1990; 27(1):73-9. PubMed ID: 2099294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Influence of tray rigidity and impression technique on accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions.
    Hoyos A; Soderholm KJ
    Int J Prosthodont; 2011; 24(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 21210004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy.
    Brosky ME; Pesun IJ; Lowder PD; Delong R; Hodges JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Feb; 87(2):204-9. PubMed ID: 11854678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. A randomized clinical trial to compare diagnostic casts made using plastic and metal trays.
    Damodara EK; Litaker MS; Rahemtulla F; McCracken MS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Dec; 104(6):364-71. PubMed ID: 21095399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. The dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques with the use of addition silicone impression materials.
    Al-Bakri IA; Hussey D; Al-Omari WM
    J Clin Dent; 2007; 18(2):29-33. PubMed ID: 17508620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA; Arioli-Filho JN; Compagnoni MA; Mollo Fde A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(2):226-36. PubMed ID: 18548918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Three-dimensional analysis of dual-arch impression trays.
    Cayouette MJ; Burgess JO; Jones RE; Yuan CH
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Mar; 34(3):189-98. PubMed ID: 12731600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Accuracy of three implant impression techniques with different impression materials and stones.
    Chang WG; Vahidi F; Bae KH; Lim BS
    Int J Prosthodont; 2012; 25(1):44-7. PubMed ID: 22259795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays.
    Johnson GH; Mancl LA; Schwedhelm ER; Verhoef DR; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Jan; 103(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 20105676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Comparative Study of Dimensional Accuracy in Three Dental Implant Impression Techniques: Open Tray, Closed Tray with Impression Coping, and Snap Cap.
    Izadi A; Heidari B; Roshanaei G; Allahbakhshi H; Fotovat F
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Aug; 19(8):974-981. PubMed ID: 30150500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Accuracy of four transfer impression techniques for dental implants: a scanning electron microscopic analysis.
    Yamamoto E; Marotti J; de Campos TT; Neto PT
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(6):1115-24. PubMed ID: 21197487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. The effect of different adhesives on vinyl polysiloxane bond strength to two tray materials.
    Peregrina A; Land MF; Wandling C; Johnston WM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Sep; 94(3):209-13. PubMed ID: 16126072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. A practice-based assessment of the handling of a fast-setting polyvinyl siloxane impression material used with the dual-arch tray technique.
    Burke FJ; Crisp RJ
    Quintessence Int; 2001; 32(10):805-10. PubMed ID: 11820050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Impression techniques and misfit-induced strains on implant-supported superstructures: an in vitro study.
    Cehreli MC; Akça K
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2006 Aug; 26(4):379-85. PubMed ID: 16939020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Accuracy of implant impression techniques.
    Assif D; Marshak B; Schmidt A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1996; 11(2):216-22. PubMed ID: 8666454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Vinylsiloxanether: a new impression material. Clinical study of implant impressions with vinylsiloxanether versus polyether materials.
    Enkling N; Bayer S; Jöhren P; Mericske-Stern R
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 Mar; 14(1):144-51. PubMed ID: 19793332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. A clinical comparison of two vinyl polysiloxane impression materials using the one-step technique.
    Raigrodski AJ; Dogan S; Mancl LA; Heindl H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Sep; 102(3):179-86. PubMed ID: 19703625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Accuracy of impression techniques for implants. Part 2 - comparison of splinting techniques.
    Filho HG; Mazaro JV; Vedovatto E; Assunção WG; dos Santos PH
    J Prosthodont; 2009 Feb; 18(2):172-6. PubMed ID: 19178624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.