287 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27461088)
1. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study.
Vecsei B; Joós-Kovács G; Borbély J; Hermann P
J Prosthodont Res; 2017 Apr; 61(2):177-184. PubMed ID: 27461088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Positional trueness of abutments by using a digital die-merging protocol compared with complete arch direct digital scans and conventional dental impressions.
Jelicich A; Scialabba R; Lee SJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Feb; 131(2):293-300. PubMed ID: 35430047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Accuracy of three intraoral scans for primary impressions of edentulous jaws].
Cao Y; Chen JK; Deng KH; Wang Y; Sun YC; Zhao YJ
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Feb; 52(1):129-137. PubMed ID: 32071476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Trueness of CAD/CAM digitization with a desktop scanner - an in vitro study.
Joós-Kovács G; Vecsei B; Körmendi S; Gyarmathy VA; Borbély J; Hermann P
BMC Oral Health; 2019 Dec; 19(1):280. PubMed ID: 31830970
[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. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.
Ender A; Zimmermann M; Mehl A
Int J Comput Dent; 2019; 22(1):11-19. PubMed ID: 30848250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques.
Malik J; Rodriguez J; Weisbloom M; Petridis H
Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(2):107-113. PubMed ID: 29518805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions.
Albayrak B; Sukotjo C; Wee AG; Korkmaz İH; Bayındır F
J Prosthodont; 2021 Feb; 30(2):163-170. PubMed ID: 32935894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization.
Güth JF; Runkel C; Beuer F; Stimmelmayr M; Edelhoff D; Keul C
Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Jun; 21(5):1445-1455. PubMed ID: 27406138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems.
Shembesh M; Ali A; Finkelman M; Weber HP; Zandparsa R
J Prosthodont; 2017 Oct; 26(7):581-586. PubMed ID: 26855068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans based on confocal microscopy versus optical triangulation: A comparative in vitro study.
Waldecker M; Rues S; Rammelsberg P; Bömicke W
J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Sep; 126(3):414-420. PubMed ID: 32950254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible.
Hayama H; Fueki K; Wadachi J; Wakabayashi N
J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Jul; 62(3):347-352. PubMed ID: 29502933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An
Shaikh M; Lakha T; Kheur S; Qamri B; Kheur M
J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2022; 22(4):398-404. PubMed ID: 36511075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.
Ender A; Zimmermann M; Attin T; Mehl A
Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Sep; 20(7):1495-504. PubMed ID: 26547869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
