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 *

228 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25506645)

  • 1. Evaluation of the three-dimensional accuracy of implant impression techniques in two simulated clinical conditions by optical scanning.
    Sabouhi M; Bajoghli F; Abolhasani M
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(1):26-34. PubMed ID: 25506645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of implant casts generated with splinted and non-splinted impression techniques for edentulous patients: an optical scanning study.
    Papaspyridakos P; Benic GI; Hogsett VL; White GS; Lal K; Gallucci GO
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2012 Jun; 23(6):676-681. PubMed ID: 21631595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques on the accuracy of fit of fixed implant prostheses in edentulous patients: a comparative study.
    Papaspyridakos P; Lal K; White GS; Weber HP; Gallucci GO
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(6):1267-72. PubMed ID: 22167432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit.
    Papaspyridakos P; Hirayama H; Chen CJ; Ho CH; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Sep; 27(9):1099-105. PubMed ID: 26374268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach.
    Stimmelmayr M; Erdelt K; Güth JF; Happe A; Beuer F
    Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Aug; 16(4):1137-42. PubMed ID: 22009182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Effects of Impression Coping Design, Impression Technique, and Dental Undercuts on the Accuracy of Implant Impressions Assessed by 3-Dimensional Optical Scanning: An In Vitro Study.
    Sabouhi M; Bajoghli F; Dakhilalian M; Beygi A; Abolhasani M
    Implant Dent; 2016 Apr; 25(2):238-46. PubMed ID: 26914543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses.
    Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Different implant impression techniques for edentulous patients treated with CAD/CAM complete-arch prostheses: a randomised controlled trial reporting data at 3 year post-loading.
    Pozzi A; Tallarico M; Mangani F; Barlattani A
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2013; 6(4):325-40. PubMed ID: 24570979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.
    Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Parameters of passive fit using a new technique to mill implant-supported superstructures: an in vitro study of a novel three-dimensional force measurement-misfit method.
    Tahmaseb A; van de Weijden JJ; Mercelis P; De Clerck R; Wismeijer D
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(2):247-57. PubMed ID: 20369082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Accuracy of implant impression splinted techniques: effect of splinting material.
    Assif D; Nissan J; Varsano I; Singer A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1999; 14(6):885-8. PubMed ID: 10612928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.
    Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Mancl L; Brudvik JS; Raigrodski AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Oct; 110(4):243-51. PubMed ID: 24079558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study.
    Alshawaf B; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):835-842. PubMed ID: 29926977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA; Arioli-Filho JN; Compagnoni MA; Mollo Fde A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(2):226-36. PubMed ID: 18548918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of the accuracy of plastic and metal stock trays for implant impressions.
    Del'acqua MA; de Avila ÉD; Amaral ÂL; Pinelli LA; de Assis Mollo F
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(3):544-50. PubMed ID: 22616047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions.
    Vigolo P; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):186-92. PubMed ID: 12616240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Accuracy of impression scanning compared with stone casts of implant impressions.
    Matta RE; Adler W; Wichmann M; Heckmann SM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Apr; 117(4):507-512. PubMed ID: 27881327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.