166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23224041)
1. Clinical study evaluating the discrepancy of two different impression techniques of four implants in an edentulous jaw.
Stimmelmayr M; Güth JF; Erdelt K; Happe A; Schlee M; Beuer F
Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Nov; 17(8):1929-35. PubMed ID: 23224041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach.
Stimmelmayr M; Erdelt K; Güth JF; Happe A; Beuer F
Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Aug; 16(4):1137-42. PubMed ID: 22009182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Implant Impression Techniques for the Edentulous Jaw: A Summary of Three Studies.
Stimmelmayr M; Beuer F; Edelhoff D; Güth JF
J Prosthodont; 2016 Feb; 25(2):146-50. PubMed ID: 26032581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Evaluation of the three-dimensional accuracy of implant impression techniques in two simulated clinical conditions by optical scanning.
Sabouhi M; Bajoghli F; Abolhasani M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(1):26-34. PubMed ID: 25506645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.
Papaspyridakos P; Gallucci GO; Chen CJ; Hanssen S; Naert I; Vandenberghe B
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Apr; 27(4):465-72. PubMed ID: 25682892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit.
Papaspyridakos P; Hirayama H; Chen CJ; Ho CH; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Sep; 27(9):1099-105. PubMed ID: 26374268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Complete digital workflow for prosthesis prototype fabrication with double digital scanning: A retrospective study with 45 edentulous jaws.
Papaspyridakos P; Vazouras K; Gotsis S; Bokhary A; Sicilia E; Kudara Y; Bedrossian A; Chochlidakis K
J Prosthodont; 2023 Aug; 32(7):571-578. PubMed ID: 36527731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of the accuracy of plastic and metal stock trays for implant impressions.
Del'acqua MA; de Avila ÉD; Amaral ÂL; Pinelli LA; de Assis Mollo F
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(3):544-50. PubMed ID: 22616047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle.
Nagata K; Fuchigami K; Okuhama Y; Wakamori K; Tsuruoka H; Nakashizu T; Hoshi N; Atsumi M; Kimoto K; Kawana H
BMC Oral Health; 2021 Sep; 21(1):464. PubMed ID: 34556111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluating the Effect of Different Impression Techniques and Splinting Methods on the Dimensional Accuracy of Multiple Implant Impressions: An in vitro Study.
Saini HS; Jain S; Kumar S; Aggarwal R; Choudhary S; Reddy NK
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Aug; 19(8):1005-1012. PubMed ID: 30150505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. In Vitro Implant Impression Accuracy Using a New Photopolymerizing SDR Splinting Material.
Di Fiore A; Meneghello R; Savio G; Sivolella S; Katsoulis J; Stellini E
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2015 Oct; 17 Suppl 2():e721-9. PubMed ID: 25782045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of accuracy of multiple dental implant impressions using various splinting materials.
Hariharan R; Shankar C; Rajan M; Baig MR; Azhagarasan NS
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(1):38-44. PubMed ID: 20209185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques.
Alsharbaty MHM; Alikhasi M; Zarrati S; Shamshiri AR
J Prosthodont; 2019 Apr; 28(4):e902-e908. PubMed ID: 29423969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Precision and Accuracy of a Digital Impression Scanner in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation.
Pesce P; Pera F; Setti P; Menini M
Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(2):171-175. PubMed ID: 29518813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.
Marghalani A; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Kudara Y; El Rafie K; Papaspyridakos P
J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579. PubMed ID: 28927923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
