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 *

215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26816576)

  • 1. Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition.
    Rhee YK; Huh YH; Cho LR; Park CJ
    J Adv Prosthodont; 2015 Dec; 7(6):460-7. PubMed ID: 26816576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients.
    Kuhr F; Schmidt A; Rehmann P; Wöstmann B
    J Dent; 2016 Dec; 55():68-74. PubMed ID: 27717754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Accuracy of new implant impression technique using dual arch tray and bite impression coping.
    Lee SE; Yang SE; Lee CW; Lee WS; Lee SY
    J Adv Prosthodont; 2018 Aug; 10(4):265-270. PubMed ID: 30140392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison.
    Keul C; Güth JF
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Feb; 24(2):735-745. PubMed ID: 31134345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner.
    Mennito AS; Evans ZP; Nash J; Bocklet C; Lauer Kelly A; Bacro T; Cayouette M; Ludlow M; Renne WG
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2019 Jul; 31(4):369-377. PubMed ID: 31058428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression.
    Kim KR; Seo KY; Kim S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Dec; 122(6):543-549. PubMed ID: 30955939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy of Digital vs Conventional Implant Impression Approach: A Three-Dimensional Comparative In Vitro Analysis.
    Basaki K; Alkumru H; De Souza G; Finer Y
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2017; 32(4):792–799. PubMed ID: 28618432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro.
    Güth JF; Edelhoff D; Schweiger J; Keul C
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Sep; 20(7):1487-94. PubMed ID: 26454734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance.
    Atieh MA; Ritter AV; Ko CC; Duqum I
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):400-405. PubMed ID: 28222869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions: two and three dimensional evaluations.
    Bi C; Wang X; Tian F; Qu Z; Zhao J
    J Adv Prosthodont; 2022 Aug; 14(4):236-249. PubMed ID: 36105881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae.
    Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P; Tsigarida A; Romeo D; Chen YW; Natto Z; Ercoli C
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Apr; 29(4):281-286. PubMed ID: 32166793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.
    Marghalani A; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Kudara Y; El Rafie K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579. PubMed ID: 28927923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A novel method for complex three-dimensional evaluation of intraoral scanner accuracy.
    Vág J; Nagy Z; Simon B; Mikolicz Á; Kövér E; Mennito A; Evans Z; Renne W
    Int J Comput Dent; 2019; 22(3):239-249. PubMed ID: 31463488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch.
    Tan MY; Yee SHX; Wong KM; Tan YH; Tan KBC
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(2):366–380. PubMed ID: 30521661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.