235 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26340014)
1. Prefabricated Versus Customized Abutments: A Retrospective Analysis of Loosening of Cement-Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Reconstructions.
Korsch M; Walther W
Int J Prosthodont; 2015; 28(5):522-6. PubMed ID: 26340014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Retrospective analysis of loosening of cement-retained vs screw-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions.
Korsch M; Walther W
Quintessence Int; 2015; 46(7):583-9. PubMed ID: 25918762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Retrospective comparison of semipermanent and permanent cementation of implant-supported single crowns and FDPs with regard to the incidence of survival and complications.
Schwarz S; Schröder C; Corcodel N; Hassel AJ; Rammelsberg P
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 May; 14 Suppl 1():e151-8. PubMed ID: 22081988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Use of prefabricated titanium abutments and customized anatomic lithium disilicate structures for cement-retained implant restorations in the esthetic zone.
Lin WS; Harris BT; Zandinejad A; Martin WC; Morton D
J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Mar; 111(3):181-5. PubMed ID: 24360007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Influence of margin location and luting material on the amount of undetected cement excess on CAD/CAM implant abutments and cement-retained zirconia crowns: an in-vitro study.
Gehrke P; Bleuel K; Fischer C; Sader R
BMC Oral Health; 2019 Jun; 19(1):111. PubMed ID: 31200680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Zirconia abutments for single-tooth implant restorations: a retrospective and clinical follow-up study.
Ekfeldt A; Fürst B; Carlsson GE
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2011 Nov; 22(11):1308-14. PubMed ID: 21382085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Retention of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns on prefabricated implant abutments: an in vitro comparative study of luting agents and abutment surface area.
Carnaggio TV; Conrad R; Engelmeier RL; Gerngross P; Paravina R; Perezous L; Powers JM
J Prosthodont; 2012 Oct; 21(7):523-8. PubMed ID: 22469271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations.
Nissan J; Narobai D; Gross O; Ghelfan O; Chaushu G
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(5):1102-7. PubMed ID: 22010095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of the amount of excess cement around the margins of cement-retained dental implant restorations: the effect of the cement application method.
Chee WW; Duncan J; Afshar M; Moshaverinia A
J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Apr; 109(4):216-21. PubMed ID: 23566601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cement-retained implant-supported fixed partial dentures: a 6-month to 3-year follow-up.
Singer A; Serfaty V
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1996; 11(5):645-9. PubMed ID: 8908864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cemented CeraOne and porcelain fused to TiAdapt abutment single-implant crown restorations: a 10-year comparative follow-up study.
Jemt T
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2009 Dec; 11(4):303-10. PubMed ID: 18783414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Changes in the outcome of metal-ceramic tooth-supported single crowns and FDPs following the introduction of osseointegrated implant dentistry into a prosthodontic practice.
Walton TR
Int J Prosthodont; 2009; 22(3):260-7. PubMed ID: 19548408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A Novel Full-Digital Protocol (SCAN-PLAN-MAKE-DONE
Mangano F; Margiani B; Admakin O
Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2019 Jan; 16(3):. PubMed ID: 30678357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Technical complications and failures of zirconia-based prostheses supported by implants followed up to 7 years: a case series.
Kolgeci L; Mericske E; Worni A; Walker P; Katsoulis J; Mericske-Stern R
Int J Prosthodont; 2014; 27(6):544-52. PubMed ID: 25390869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of axial wall modification on the retention of cement-retained, implant-supported crowns.
Tan KM; Masri R; Driscoll CF; Limkangwalmongkol P; Romberg E
J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Feb; 107(2):80-5. PubMed ID: 22304741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Clinical evaluation of 209 all-ceramic single crowns cemented on natural and implant-supported abutments with different luting agents: a 6-year retrospective study.
Sorrentino R; Galasso L; Tetè S; De Simone G; Zarone F
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 Apr; 14(2):184-97. PubMed ID: 20030675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of implant abutment modification on the extrusion of excess cement at the crown-abutment margin for cement-retained implant restorations.
Wadhwani C; Piñeyro A; Hess T; Zhang H; Chung KH
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(6):1241-6. PubMed ID: 22167429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Treatment concept of the edentulous mandible with prefabricated telescopic abutments and immediate functional loading.
Romanos GE; May S; May D
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(3):593-7. PubMed ID: 21691607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Screw- vs cement-implant-retained restorations: an experimental study in the Beagle. Part 1. Screw and abutment loosening.
Assenza B; Scarano A; Leghissa G; Carusi G; Thams U; Roman FS; Piattelli A
J Oral Implantol; 2005; 31(5):242-6. PubMed ID: 16265854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with CAD/CAM-fabricated porcelain crown and zirconia-based framework.
Takaba M; Tanaka S; Ishiura Y; Baba K
J Prosthodont; 2013 Jul; 22(5):402-7. PubMed ID: 23289495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
