587 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24951386)
1. Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner.
An S; Kim S; Choi H; Lee JH; Moon HS
J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Nov; 112(5):1171-5. PubMed ID: 24951386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods.
Ng J; Ruse D; Wyatt C
J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Sep; 112(3):555-60. PubMed ID: 24630399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of the fit of zirconia copings fabricated by direct and indirect digital scanning procedures.
Lee B; Oh KC; Haam D; Lee JH; Moon HS
J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):225-231. PubMed ID: 29428522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners.
Abdel-Azim T; Rogers K; Elathamna E; Zandinejad A; Metz M; Morton D
J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):554-9. PubMed ID: 26100929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design.
Euán R; Figueras-Álvarez O; Cabratosa-Termes J; Oliver-Parra R
J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Aug; 112(2):155-62. PubMed ID: 24445027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Marginal and internal fit of zirconia copings obtained using different digital scanning methods.
Pedroche LO; Bernardes SR; Leão MP; Kintopp CC; Correr GM; Ornaghi BP; Gonzaga CC
Braz Oral Res; 2016 Oct; 30(1):e113. PubMed ID: 27737366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of marginal fit of cemented zirconia copings manufactured after digital impression with lava™ C.O.S and conventional impression technique.
Dauti R; Cvikl B; Franz A; Schwarze UY; Lilaj B; Rybaczek T; Moritz A
BMC Oral Health; 2016 Dec; 16(1):129. PubMed ID: 27931256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of digital impressions and production protocols on the adaptation of zirconia copings.
Kocaağaoğlu H; Kılınç HI; Albayrak H
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Jan; 117(1):102-108. PubMed ID: 27622786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.
Anadioti E; Aquilino SA; Gratton DG; Holloway JA; Denry I; Thomas GW; Qian F
J Prosthodont; 2014 Dec; 23(8):610-7. PubMed ID: 24995593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The fit of crowns produced using digital impression systems.
Vennerstrom M; Fakhary M; Von Steyern PV
Swed Dent J; 2014; 38(3):101-10. PubMed ID: 25796804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit zirconia frameworks fabricated with CAD-CAM technology using direct and indirect digital scans.
Arezoobakhsh A; Shayegh SS; Jamali Ghomi A; Hakimaneh SMR
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):105-112. PubMed ID: 30982618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression.
Su TS; Sun J
J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Sep; 116(3):362-7. PubMed ID: 27061628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of the fit of metal copings fabricated using stereolithography.
Kim SB; Kim NH; Kim JH; Moon HS
J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Nov; 120(5):693-698. PubMed ID: 29807735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of the fit of Procera crowns made from stone with those made from polyurethane resin.
Rahme HY; Adib SM; Zebouni EA; Bechara BB; Rifai KT
Gen Dent; 2009; 57(2):171-9. PubMed ID: 19552368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Marginal fit of zirconia copings fabricated after conventional impression making and digital scanning: An in vitro study.
Carrilho Baltazar Vaz IM; Pimentel Coelho Lino Carracho JF
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Aug; 124(2):223.e1-223.e6. PubMed ID: 32336539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients' preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material.
Sakornwimon N; Leevailoj C
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):386-391. PubMed ID: 28222872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effects of repeated firing on the marginal accuracy of Co-Cr copings fabricated by selective laser melting.
Zeng L; Zhang Y; Liu Z; Wei B
J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Feb; 113(2):135-9. PubMed ID: 25444279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems.
Shembesh M; Ali A; Finkelman M; Weber HP; Zandparsa R
J Prosthodont; 2017 Oct; 26(7):581-586. PubMed ID: 26855068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of the Fit of Lithium Disilicate Crowns made from Conventional, Digital, or Conventional/Digital Techniques.
Al Hamad KQ; Al Rashdan BA; Al Omari WM; Baba NZ
J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):e580-e586. PubMed ID: 30091168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions.
Zarauz C; Valverde A; Martinez-Rus F; Hassan B; Pradies G
Clin Oral Investig; 2016 May; 20(4):799-806. PubMed ID: 26362778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
