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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2519534)

  • 1. Comparison of CT generated model with its mandibular and maxillary bone; 2: In vivo study utilizing rasterstereographic technique.
    Harris DD; Ismail YH; Misch C; Zaki HS
    Int J Oral Implantol; 1989; 6(1):21-4. PubMed ID: 2519534
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of computerized tomography (CT) generated model with its mandibular and maxillary bone; 1: In vitro study utilizing dry mandibles.
    Zahed TN; Zaki HS; Ismail YH; Curtin H; Misch C
    Int J Oral Implantol; 1989; 6(1):17-9. PubMed ID: 2519533
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Computer tomography (CT) applications in implant dentistry.
    James RA; Lozada JL; Truitt HP
    J Oral Implantol; 1991; 17(1):10-5. PubMed ID: 1942127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Long-term retrospective studies on the CT-scan, CAD/CAM, one-stage surgery hydroxyapatite-coated subperiosteal implants, including human functional retrievals.
    Benjamin LS
    Dent Clin North Am; 1992 Jan; 36(1):77-93; discussion 94-5. PubMed ID: 1310663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of facial and lingual cortical thicknesses in edentulous maxillary and mandibular sites measured on computerized tomograms.
    Flanagan D
    J Oral Implantol; 2008; 34(5):256-8. PubMed ID: 19170291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of implant treatment planning utilizing template-guided reformatted computed tomography.
    Besimo CE; Lambrecht JT; Guindy JS
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2000 Jan; 29(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 10654036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. CAD-CAM multiplanar diagnostic imaging for subperiosteal implants.
    Golec TS
    Dent Clin North Am; 1986 Jan; 30(1):85-95. PubMed ID: 3456935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Morphologic replication of the mandible using computerized tomography for the fabrication of a subperiosteal implant.
    Truitt HP; James RA; Lindley PE; Boyne P
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1988 May; 65(5):499-504. PubMed ID: 3287255
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Helical CT scanning for CAD/CAM subperiosteal implant construction.
    Stoler A
    J Oral Implantol; 1996; 22(3-4):247-57. PubMed ID: 9524503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Histomorphometric analysis of implant anchorage for 3 types of dental implants following 6 months of healing in baboon jaws.
    Carr AB; Gerard DA; Larsen PE
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2000; 15(6):785-91. PubMed ID: 11151576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Placement of a modified subperiosteal implant: a clinical solution to help those with no bone.
    Nazarian A
    Dent Today; 2014 Jul; 33(7):134, 136-7. PubMed ID: 25118530
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The role of computerized tomography in dental implantology.
    Williams MY; Mealey BL; Hallmon WW
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1992; 7(3):373-80. PubMed ID: 1289264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Virtually planned and template-guided implant surgery: an experimental model matching approach.
    Komiyama A; Pettersson A; Hultin M; Näsström K; Klinge B
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2011 Mar; 22(3):308-13. PubMed ID: 20868453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Application of stereolithography to subperiosteal implant manufacture.
    McAllister ML
    J Oral Implantol; 1998; 24(2):89-92. PubMed ID: 9835835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. CAD/CAM subperiosteal implants in Australia. Case report.
    Fischer JE
    Aust Dent J; 1993 Aug; 38(4):261-4. PubMed ID: 8110228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An in vitro comparison of the computerized tomography/CAD-CAM and direct bone impression techniques for subperiosteal implant model generation.
    Cranin AN; Klein M; Ley JP; Andrews J; DiGregorio R
    J Oral Implantol; 1998; 24(2):74-9. PubMed ID: 9835833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. In vivo, thyroid and lens surface exposure with spiral and conventional computed tomography in dental implant radiography.
    Bianchi J; Goggins W; Rudolph M
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2000 Aug; 90(2):249-53. PubMed ID: 10936846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. CT in the preoperative assessment of the mandible and maxilla for endosseous implant surgery. Work in progress.
    Rothman SL; Chaftez N; Rhodes ML; Schwarz MS
    Radiology; 1988 Jul; 168(1):171-5. PubMed ID: 3380955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Select uses of the subperiosteal implant.
    Benjamin LS
    Dent Implantol Update; 1994 Feb; 5(2):13-6. PubMed ID: 7919412
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Imaging for predictable maxillary implants.
    Duckmanton NA; Austin BW; Lechner SK; Klineberg IJ
    Int J Prosthodont; 1994; 7(1):77-80. PubMed ID: 8179788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.