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 *

565 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25032765)

  • 21. Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts.
    Buda M; Bratos M; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):913-918. PubMed ID: 29961627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study.
    Andriessen FS; Rijkens DR; van der Meer WJ; Wismeijer DW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Mar; 111(3):186-94. PubMed ID: 24210732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Flügge T; van der Meer WJ; Gonzalez BG; Vach K; Wismeijer D; Wang P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():374-392. PubMed ID: 30328182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Do Type and Shape of Scan Bodies Affect Accuracy and Time of Digital Implant Impressions?
    Moslemion M; Payaminia L; Jalali H; Alikhasi M
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2020 Feb; 28(1):18-27. PubMed ID: 32036633
    [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 full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: A systematic review.
    Zhang YJ; Shi JY; Qian SJ; Qiao SC; Lai HC
    Int J Oral Implantol (Berl); 2021 May; 14(2):157-179. PubMed ID: 34006079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Accuracy of impressions with different impression materials in angulated implants.
    Reddy S; Prasad K; Vakil H; Jain A; Chowdhary R
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2013; 16(3):279-84. PubMed ID: 23771446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. In vitro assessment of the accuracy of digital impressions prepared using a single system for full-arch restorations on implants.
    Ciocca L; Meneghello R; Monaco C; Savio G; Scheda L; Gatto MR; Baldissara P
    Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2018 Jul; 13(7):1097-1108. PubMed ID: 29500759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Impact of Different Scan Bodies and Scan Strategies on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Assessed with an Intraoral Scanner: An In Vitro Study.
    Motel C; Kirchner E; Adler W; Wichmann M; Matta RE
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Apr; 29(4):309-314. PubMed ID: 31802574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Accuracy of computerized and conventional impression-making procedures for multiple straight and tilted dental implants.
    Gintaute A; Papatriantafyllou N; Aljehani M; Att W
    Int J Esthet Dent; 2018; 13(4):550-565. PubMed ID: 30302442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Evaluation of accuracy of complete-arch multiple-unit abutment-level dental implant impressions using different impression and splinting materials.
    Buzayan M; Baig MR; Yunus N
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(6):1512-20. PubMed ID: 24278919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Accuracy of implant impression techniques with a scannable healing abutment.
    Jung HT; Kim HY; Song SY; Park JH; Lee JY
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Oct; 128(4):729-734. PubMed ID: 33832762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial.
    Arcuri L; Pozzi A; Lio F; Rompen E; Zechner W; Nardi A
    J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Apr; 64(2):128-136. PubMed ID: 31255546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 29.