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 *

610 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25220390)

  • 1. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review.
    Ting-Shu S; Jian S
    J Prosthodont; 2015 Jun; 24(4):313-21. PubMed ID: 25220390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Accuracy of Digital Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.
    Giachetti L; Sarti C; Cinelli F; Russo DS
    Int J Prosthodont; 2020; 33(2):192-201. PubMed ID: 32069344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses.
    Takeuchi Y; Koizumi H; Furuchi M; Sato Y; Ohkubo C; Matsumura H
    J Oral Sci; 2018; 60(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 29576569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns.
    Berrendero S; Salido MP; Valverde A; Ferreiroa A; Pradíes G
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Dec; 20(9):2403-2410. PubMed ID: 26800669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review.
    Ahlholm P; Sipilä K; Vallittu P; Jakonen M; Kotiranta U
    J Prosthodont; 2018 Jan; 27(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 27483210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Clinical Applications of Intraoral Scanning in Removable Prosthodontics: A Literature Review.
    AlRumaih HS
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Dec; 30(9):747-762. PubMed ID: 34043266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial.
    Ahrberg D; Lauer HC; Ahrberg M; Weigl P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Mar; 20(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 26070435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated from conventional and digital impressions assessed with micro-CT.
    Kim JH; Jeong JH; Lee JH; Cho HW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Oct; 116(4):551-557. PubMed ID: 27422237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Chochlidakis KM; Papaspyridakos P; Geminiani A; Chen CJ; Feng IJ; Ercoli C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Aug; 116(2):184-190.e12. PubMed ID: 26946916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical Acceptability of the Internal Gap of CAD/CAM PD-AG Crowns Using Intraoral Digital Impressions.
    Kim TG; Kim S; Choi H; Lee JH; Kim JH; Moon HS
    Biomed Res Int; 2016; 2016():7065454. PubMed ID: 28018914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review.
    Kihara H; Hatakeyama W; Komine F; Takafuji K; Takahashi T; Yokota J; Oriso K; Kondo H
    J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Apr; 64(2):109-113. PubMed ID: 31474576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Intraoral Digital Impressioning for Dental Implant Restorations Versus Traditional Implant Impression Techniques.
    Wilk BL
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2015; 36(7):529-30, 532-3. PubMed ID: 26247446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner.
    Mennito AS; Evans ZP; Nash J; Bocklet C; Lauer Kelly A; Bacro T; Cayouette M; Ludlow M; Renne WG
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2019 Jul; 31(4):369-377. PubMed ID: 31058428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations.
    Rudolph H; Salmen H; Moldan M; Kuhn K; Sichwardt V; Wöstmann B; Luthardt RG
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2016; 24(1):85-94. PubMed ID: 27008261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.
    Ender A; Zimmermann M; Attin T; Mehl A
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Sep; 20(7):1495-504. PubMed ID: 26547869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 31.