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 *

600 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25220390)

  • 21. Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions for Whole Upper Jaws, Including Full Dentitions and Palatal Soft Tissues.
    Gan N; Xiong Y; Jiao T
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(7):e0158800. PubMed ID: 27383409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.
    Flügge TV; Schlager S; Nelson K; Nahles S; Metzger MC
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Sep; 144(3):471-8. PubMed ID: 23992820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.
    Carbajal Mejía JB; Wakabayashi K; Nakamura T; Yatani H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):392-399. PubMed ID: 28222873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Digital scanning under rubber dam: An innovative method for making definitive impressions in fixed prosthodontics.
    Henarejos-Domingo V; Clavijo V; Blasi Á; Madeira S; Roig M
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2021 Oct; 33(7):976-981. PubMed ID: 34008328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Students' perspectives on the use of digital versus conventional dental impression techniques in orthodontics.
    Schott TC; Arsalan R; Weimer K
    BMC Med Educ; 2019 Mar; 19(1):81. PubMed ID: 30866910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview.
    Zimmermann M; Mehl A; Mörmann WH; Reich S
    Int J Comput Dent; 2015; 18(2):101-29. PubMed ID: 26110925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Conventional Versus Digital Impressions for "All-on-Four" Restorations.
    Gherlone E; Capparé P; Vinci R; Ferrini F; Gastaldi G; Crespi R
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2016; 31(2):324-30. PubMed ID: 27004280
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique Compared to Conventional Impression Technique. A Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Gjelvold B; Chrcanovic BR; Korduner EK; Collin-Bagewitz I; Kisch J
    J Prosthodont; 2016 Jun; 25(4):282-7. PubMed ID: 26618259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Continuous Scan Strategy (CSS): A Novel Technique to Improve the Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions.
    Imburgia M; Kois J; Marino E; Lerner H; Mangano FG
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2020 Aug; 28(3):128-141. PubMed ID: 32750237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A clinical protocol for intraoral digital impression of screw-retained CAD/CAM framework on multiple implants based on wavefront sampling technology.
    Moreno A; Giménez B; Özcan M; Pradíes G
    Implant Dent; 2013 Aug; 22(4):320-5. PubMed ID: 23817542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparison of fit accuracy of pressed lithium disilicate inlays fabricated from wax or resin patterns with conventional and CAD-CAM technologies.
    Homsy FR; Özcan M; Khoury M; Majzoub ZAK
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Oct; 120(4):530-536. PubMed ID: 30318049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Bandiaky ON; Le Bars P; Gaudin A; Hardouin JB; Cheraud-Carpentier M; Mbodj EB; Soueidan A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Jan; 127(1):71-79. PubMed ID: 33143901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction.
    Burzynski JA; Firestone AR; Beck FM; Fields HW; Deguchi T
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Apr; 153(4):534-541. PubMed ID: 29602345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The dentist will scan you now: The next generation of digital-savvy graduates.
    Cheah C; Lim C; Ma S
    Eur J Dent Educ; 2021 May; 25(2):232-237. PubMed ID: 32815610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning.
    Tomita Y; Uechi J; Konno M; Sasamoto S; Iijima M; Mizoguchi I
    Dent Mater J; 2018 Jul; 37(4):628-633. PubMed ID: 29669951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Accuracy of Digital Impression Taking Using Intraoral Scanner versus the Conventional Technique.
    Zarbakhsh A; Jalalian E; Samiei N; Mahgoli MH; Kaseb Ghane H
    Front Dent; 2021; 18():6. PubMed ID: 35965710
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 30.