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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23224041)

  • 21. Influence of scan body design and digital implant analogs on implant replica position in additively manufactured casts.
    Revilla-León M; Fogarty R; Barrington JJ; Zandinejad A; Özcan M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Aug; 124(2):202-210. PubMed ID: 31787272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.
    Amin S; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Nov; 28(11):1360-1367. PubMed ID: 28039903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Accuracy of implant impression splinted techniques: effect of splinting material.
    Assif D; Nissan J; Varsano I; Singer A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1999; 14(6):885-8. PubMed ID: 10612928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Accuracy of impressions of multiple implants in the edentulous arch: a systematic review.
    Baig MR
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2014; 29(4):869-80. PubMed ID: 25032767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation.
    Huang R; Liu Y; Huang B; Zhang C; Chen Z; Li Z
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2020 Jul; 31(7):625-633. PubMed ID: 32181919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses.
    Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Accuracy of impressions and casts using different implant impression techniques in a multi-implant system with an internal hex connection.
    Wenz HJ; Hertrampf K
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(1):39-47. PubMed ID: 18416411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Computerized optical impression making of edentulous jaws - An in vivo feasibility study.
    Hack G; Liberman L; Vach K; Tchorz JP; Kohal RJ; Patzelt SBM
    J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Oct; 64(4):444-453. PubMed ID: 32061572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Evaluation of accuracy of casts of multiple internal connection implant prosthesis obtained from different impression materials and techniques: an in vitro study.
    Pujari M; Garg P; Prithviraj DR
    J Oral Implantol; 2014 Apr; 40(2):137-45. PubMed ID: 24456531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Accuracy of three intraoral scans for primary impressions of edentulous jaws].
    Cao Y; Chen JK; Deng KH; Wang Y; Sun YC; Zhao YJ
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Feb; 52(1):129-137. PubMed ID: 32071476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Accuracy of 3 different impression techniques for internal connection angulated implants.
    Tsagkalidis G; Tortopidis D; Mpikos P; Kaisarlis G; Koidis P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):517-23. PubMed ID: 26213265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Early functional loading at 5 days for Brånemark implants placed into edentulous mandibles: a prospective, open-ended, longitudinal study.
    Becker W; Becker BE; Huffstetlert S
    J Periodontol; 2003 May; 74(5):695-702. PubMed ID: 12816303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Effect of modified tray design on accuracy of different impression techniques for parallel and divergent implants.
    Dang L; Woliansky M; Palamara J; Abduo J
    J Oral Sci; 2020 Sep; 62(4):439-443. PubMed ID: 32908080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Immediate loading of multiple splinted implants via complete digital workflow: A pilot clinical study with 1-year follow-up.
    Jiang X; Lin Y; Cui HY; Di P
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2019 Jun; 21(3):446-453. PubMed ID: 31025525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Three-dimensional accuracy of innovative implant-level impression techniques with plastic snap-on impression copings.
    Asli HN; Hemmati YB; Falahchai M
    Dent Med Probl; 2021; 58(3):351-357. PubMed ID: 34435758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Accuracy of Different Implant Impression Techniques: Evaluation of New Tray Design Concept.
    Liu DY; Cader FN; Abduo J; Palamara J
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):e682-e687. PubMed ID: 29286181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Parameters of passive fit using a new technique to mill implant-supported superstructures: an in vitro study of a novel three-dimensional force measurement-misfit method.
    Tahmaseb A; van de Weijden JJ; Mercelis P; De Clerck R; Wismeijer D
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(2):247-57. PubMed ID: 20369082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method.
    Schmidt A; Rein PE; Wöstmann B; Schlenz MA
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2021 Apr; 32(4):460-469. PubMed ID: 33469983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.