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 *

193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26803173)

  • 1. Accuracy in the digital workflow: From data acquisition to the digitally milled cast.
    Koch GK; Gallucci GO; Lee SJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Jun; 115(6):749-54. PubMed ID: 26803173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions.
    Lee SJ; Betensky RA; Gianneschi GE; Gallucci GO
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2015 Jun; 26(6):715-9. PubMed ID: 24720423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Accuracy of three digital workflows for implant abutment and crown fabrication using a digital measuring technique.
    Zeller S; Guichet D; Kontogiorgos E; Nagy WW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Feb; 121(2):276-284. PubMed ID: 30396709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study.
    Lin WS; Harris BT; Elathamna EN; Abdel-Azim T; Morton D
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(1):102-9. PubMed ID: 25615919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Interproximal distance analysis of stereolithographic casts made by CAD-CAM technology: An in vitro study.
    Hoffman M; Cho SH; Bansal NK
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Nov; 118(5):624-630. PubMed ID: 28477918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods.
    Ng J; Ruse D; Wyatt C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Sep; 112(3):555-60. PubMed ID: 24630399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The precision of fit of cast and milled full-arch implant-supported restorations.
    Paniz G; Stellini E; Meneghello R; Cerardi A; Gobbato EA; Bressan E
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(3):687-93. PubMed ID: 23748298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.
    Amin S; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Nov; 28(11):1360-1367. PubMed ID: 28039903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual edentulous casts created by laboratory impression scan protocols.
    Peng L; Chen L; Harris BT; Bhandari B; Morton D; Lin WS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):389-395. PubMed ID: 29703675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Digital workflow: In vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans.
    Papaspyridakos P; Chen YW; Alshawaf B; Kang K; Finkelman M; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Nov; 124(5):589-593. PubMed ID: 31959396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro.
    Schaefer O; Decker M; Wittstock F; Kuepper H; Guentsch A
    J Dent; 2014 Jun; 42(6):677-83. PubMed ID: 24508541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Internal fit of pressed and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing ceramic crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.
    Anadioti E; Aquilino SA; Gratton DG; Holloway JA; Denry IL; Thomas GW; Qian F
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Apr; 113(4):304-9. PubMed ID: 25488521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Crown Accuracy and Time Efficiency of Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Restorations in a Complete Digital Workflow: A Randomized Control Trial.
    Ren S; Jiang X; Lin Y; Di P
    J Prosthodont; 2022 Jun; 31(5):405-411. PubMed ID: 34748653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of margin discrepancy of complete gold crowns fabricated using printed, milled, and conventional hand-waxed patterns.
    Munoz S; Ramos V; Dickinson DP
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Jul; 118(1):89-94. PubMed ID: 27866698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Occlusal contact and clearance of posterior implant-supported single crowns designed by two different methods: a self-controlled study.
    He M; Pu T; Ding Q; Sun Y; Wang P; Sun Y; Zhang L
    BMC Oral Health; 2023 Mar; 23(1):151. PubMed ID: 36918877
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.