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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26794693)

  • 1. Photogrammetric method to measure the discrepancy between clinical and software-designed positions of implants.
    Rivara F; Lumetti S; Calciolari E; Toffoli A; Forlani G; Manfredi E
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Jun; 115(6):703-11. PubMed ID: 26794693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine.
    Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Photogrammetry--an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study.
    Jemt T; Bäck T; Petersson A
    Int J Prosthodont; 1999; 12(4):363-8. PubMed ID: 10635208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts.
    Buda M; Bratos M; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):913-918. PubMed ID: 29961627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants.
    Conrad HJ; Pesun IJ; DeLong R; Hodges JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Jun; 97(6):349-56. PubMed ID: 17618917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy of computer-aided oral implant surgery: a clinical and radiographic study.
    Valente F; Schiroli G; Sbrenna A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(2):234-42. PubMed ID: 19492638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Photogrammetric measurements of implant positions. Description of a technique to determine the fit between implants and superstructures.
    Lie A; Jemt T
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 1994 Mar; 5(1):30-6. PubMed ID: 8038342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Accuracy of CAD/CAM-guided surgical template implant surgery on human cadavers: Part I.
    Pettersson A; Kero T; Gillot L; Cannas B; Fäldt J; Söderberg R; Näsström K
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Jun; 103(6):334-42. PubMed ID: 20493322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Prosthetically driven, computer-guided implant planning for the edentulous maxilla: a model study.
    Katsoulis J; Pazera P; Mericske-Stern R
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2009 Sep; 11(3):238-45. PubMed ID: 18783423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Guided and computer-assisted implant surgery and prosthetic: The continuous digital workflow].
    Pascual D; Vaysse J
    Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac Chir Orale; 2016 Feb; 117(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 26781159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A novel dental implant guided surgery based on integration of surgical template and augmented reality.
    Lin YK; Yau HT; Wang IC; Zheng C; Chung KH
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2015 Jun; 17(3):543-53. PubMed ID: 23879701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Implant placement accuracy when using stereolithographic template as a surgical guide: preliminary results.
    Al-Harbi SA; Sun AY
    Implant Dent; 2009 Feb; 18(1):46-56. PubMed ID: 19212237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy of virtually planned and CAD/CAM-guided implant surgery on plastic models.
    Pettersson A; Kero T; Söderberg R; Näsström K
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Dec; 112(6):1472-8. PubMed ID: 24993374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Retrospective study to determine the accuracy of template-guided implant placement using a novel nonradiologic evaluation method.
    Schnutenhaus S; Edelmann C; Rudolph H; Luthardt RG
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol; 2016 Apr; 121(4):e72-9. PubMed ID: 26972545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Photogrammetric and Intraoral Digital Impression Technique for the Rehabilitation of Multiple Unfavorably Positioned Dental Implants: A Clinical Report.
    Molinero-Mourelle P; Lam W; Cascos-Sánchez R; Azevedo L; Gómez-Polo M
    J Oral Implantol; 2019 Oct; 45(5):398-402. PubMed ID: 31429638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Modular preoperative planning software for computer-aided oral implantology and the application of a novel stereolithographic template: a pilot study.
    Chen X; Yuan J; Wang C; Huang Y; Kang L
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2010 Sep; 12(3):181-93. PubMed ID: 19438944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.