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)

  • 21. Trueness and precision of complete-arch photogrammetry implant scanning assessed with a coordinate-measuring machine.
    Revilla-León M; Rubenstein J; Methani MM; Piedra-Cascón W; Özcan M; Att W
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jan; 129(1):160-165. PubMed ID: 34154820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Development of a digital impression procedure using photogrammetry for complete denture fabrication.
    Matsuda T; Goto T; Kurahashi K; Kashiwabara T; Ichikawa T
    Int J Comput Dent; 2016; 19(3):193-202. PubMed ID: 27644177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure.
    Menini M; Setti P; Pera F; Pera P; Pesce P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Apr; 22(3):1253-1262. PubMed ID: 28965251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch.
    Tan MY; Yee SHX; Wong KM; Tan YH; Tan KBC
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(2):366–380. PubMed ID: 30521661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods.
    Cho SH; Schaefer O; Thompson GA; Guentsch A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Apr; 113(4):310-5. PubMed ID: 25682531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Fit of implant-supported fixed prostheses fabricated on master casts made from a dental stone and a dental plaster.
    Wise M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Nov; 86(5):532-8. PubMed ID: 11725282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Digital workflow: In vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans.
    Papaspyridakos P; Chen YW; Alshawaf B; Kang K; Finkelman M; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Nov; 124(5):589-593. PubMed ID: 31959396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. All-on-four rehabilitation using photogrammetric impression technique.
    Sánchez-Monescillo A; Hernanz-Martín J; González-Serrano C; González-Serrano J; Duarte S
    Quintessence Int; 2019; 50(4):288-293. PubMed ID: 30887962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Accuracy of impression techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA; Chávez AM; Compagnoni MA; Molo Fde A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(4):715-21. PubMed ID: 20657866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Position Accuracy of Implant Analogs on 3D Printed Polymer versus Conventional Dental Stone Casts Measured Using a Coordinate Measuring Machine.
    Revilla-León M; Gonzalez-Martín Ó; Pérez López J; Sánchez-Rubio JL; Özcan M
    J Prosthodont; 2018 Jul; 27(6):560-567. PubMed ID: 29148121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Photogrammetric method to measure the discrepancy between clinical and software-designed positions of implants.
    Rivara F; Lumetti S; Calciolari E; Toffoli A; Forlani G; Manfredi E
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Jun; 115(6):703-11. PubMed ID: 26794693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts.
    Leifert MF; Leifert MM; Efstratiadis SS; Cangialosi TJ
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):16.e1-4; discussion 16. PubMed ID: 19577140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Evaluation of accuracy of photogrammetry with 3D scanning and conventional impression method for craniomaxillofacial defects using a software analysis.
    Beri A; Pisulkar SK; Bagde AD; Bansod A; Dahihandekar C; Paikrao B
    Trials; 2022 Dec; 23(1):1048. PubMed ID: 36575547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants.
    Conrad HJ; Pesun IJ; DeLong R; Hodges JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Jun; 97(6):349-56. PubMed ID: 17618917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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