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 *

462 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23771446)

  • 41. Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays.
    Burns J; Palmer R; Howe L; Wilson R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Mar; 89(3):250-5. PubMed ID: 12644799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Comparison of impression techniques and materials for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA; Chávez AM; Amaral AL; Compagnoni MA; Mollo Fde A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(4):771-6. PubMed ID: 20657873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. Assessment of Effect of Implant Angulation and Implant Number on the Dimensional Accuracy of Definitive Casts.
    Kaur G; Baweja PS; Saini RS; Singh IP; Sharma T; Singh S
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2021 Apr; 22(4):394-399. PubMed ID: 34267009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. The effects of custom tray material on the accuracy of master casts.
    Shafa S; Zaree Z; Mosharraf R
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 Sep; 9(6):49-56. PubMed ID: 18784859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Influence of impression material and time on the 3-dimensional accuracy of implant impressions.
    Holst S; Blatz MB; Bergler M; Goellner M; Wichmann M
    Quintessence Int; 2007 Jan; 38(1):67-73. PubMed ID: 17216911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Accuracy of impression techniques for implants. Part 1--Influence of transfer copings surface abrasion.
    Assunção WG; Cardoso A; Gomes EA; Tabata LF; dos Santos PH
    J Prosthodont; 2008 Dec; 17(8):641-7. PubMed ID: 19090889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Accuracy of Selective Laser Melted Bar Retaining Mandibular Implant-Assisted Overdenture: An In Vitro Comparison of Different Impression Materials and Techniques.
    El-Asfahani IA; Ramdan AS; Agamy EMTM
    J Oral Implantol; 2023 Dec; 49(6):590-598. PubMed ID: 38279655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Three-dimensional assessment of dental casts' occlusal surfaces using two impression materials.
    Tarawneh FM; Panos PG; Athanasiou AE
    J Oral Rehabil; 2008 Nov; 35(11):821-6. PubMed ID: 18482343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Influence of impression technique and material on the accuracy of multiple implant impressions.
    Wöstmann B; Rehmann P; Balkenhol M
    Int J Prosthodont; 2008; 21(4):299-301. PubMed ID: 18717085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Evaluation of the precision of three implant transfer impression techniques using two elastomeric impression materials.
    Mostafa TM; Elgendy MN; Kashef NA; Halim MM
    Int J Prosthodont; 2010; 23(6):525-8. PubMed ID: 21209987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Accuracy of various impression materials and methods for two implant systems: An effect size study.
    Schmidt A; Häussling T; Rehmann P; Schaaf H; Wöstmann B
    J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Apr; 62(2):245-251. PubMed ID: 29191609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Accuracy of casts generated from dual-arch impressions.
    Breeding LC; Dixon DL
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Oct; 84(4):403-7. PubMed ID: 11044846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions.
    Wee AG
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Mar; 83(3):323-31. PubMed ID: 10709042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. 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]  

  • 57. Working times and dimensional accuracy of the one-step putty/wash impression technique.
    Richards MW; Zeiaei S; Bagby MD; Okubo S; Soltani J
    J Prosthodont; 1998 Dec; 7(4):250-5. PubMed ID: 10196845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. 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]  

  • 59. The influence of impression coping splinting on the accuracy of the open-tray technique.
    Kavadia V; Kourtis S; Zoidis P; Sarafianou A
    Gen Dent; 2019; 67(3):e5-e9. PubMed ID: 31199752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Effect of implant angulation and impression technique on impressions of NobelActive implants.
    Alexander Hazboun GB; Masri R; Romberg E; Kempler J; Driscoll CF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 May; 113(5):425-31. PubMed ID: 25749089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.