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 *

463 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24079558)

  • 1. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.
    Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Mancl L; Brudvik JS; Raigrodski AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Oct; 110(4):243-51. PubMed ID: 24079558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Photogrammetry and conventional impressions for recording implant positions: a comparative laboratory study.
    Ortorp A; Jemt T; Bäck T
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2005; 7(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15903174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine.
    Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Photogrammetry--an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study.
    Jemt T; Bäck T; Petersson A
    Int J Prosthodont; 1999; 12(4):363-8. PubMed ID: 10635208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. [Accuracy of photogrammetry and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an
    Sun YJ; Ma BW; Yue XX; Lin X; Geng W
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2022 Feb; 57(2):168-172. PubMed ID: 35152653
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions.
    Albayrak B; Sukotjo C; Wee AG; Korkmaz İH; Bayındır F
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Feb; 30(2):163-170. PubMed ID: 32935894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. In vivo measurements of precision of fit involving implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw.
    Jemt T
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1996; 11(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 8666445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study.
    Ma B; Yue X; Sun Y; Peng L; Geng W
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Dec; 21(1):636. PubMed ID: 34893053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression.
    Kim KR; Seo KY; Kim S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Dec; 122(6):543-549. PubMed ID: 30955939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.