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 *

334 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27476358)

  • 1. Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients.
    Burhardt L; Livas C; Kerdijk W; van der Meer WJ; Ren Y
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Aug; 150(2):261-7. PubMed ID: 27476358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction.
    Burzynski JA; Firestone AR; Beck FM; Fields HW; Deguchi T
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Apr; 153(4):534-541. PubMed ID: 29602345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance.
    Grünheid T; McCarthy SD; Larson BE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Nov; 146(5):673-82. PubMed ID: 25439218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Limited evidence suggests complete arch digital scans are less time efficient than conventional impression.
    Sedky A; Abd-Elwahab Radi I
    Evid Based Dent; 2020 Dec; 21(4):138-139. PubMed ID: 33339976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of patient experience, chair-side time, accuracy of dental arch measurements and costs of acquisition of dental models.
    Glisic O; Hoejbjerre L; Sonnesen L
    Angle Orthod; 2019 Nov; 89(6):868-875. PubMed ID: 31259615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Students' perspectives on the use of digital versus conventional dental impression techniques in orthodontics.
    Schott TC; Arsalan R; Weimer K
    BMC Med Educ; 2019 Mar; 19(1):81. PubMed ID: 30866910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions.
    Sailer I; Mühlemann S; Fehmer V; Hämmerle CHF; Benic GI
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Jan; 121(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 30017152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions.
    Benic GI; Mühlemann S; Fehmer V; Hämmerle CH; Sailer I
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Nov; 116(5):777-782. PubMed ID: 27460321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Digital versus conventional impression method in children: Comfort, preference and time.
    Yilmaz H; Aydin MN
    Int J Paediatr Dent; 2019 Nov; 29(6):728-735. PubMed ID: 31348834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes.
    Yuzbasioglu E; Kurt H; Turunc R; Bilir H
    BMC Oral Health; 2014 Jan; 14():10. PubMed ID: 24479892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference.
    Schepke U; Meijer HJ; Kerdijk W; Cune MS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Sep; 114(3):403-6.e1. PubMed ID: 26047800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Computerized Casts for Orthodontic Purpose Using Powder-Free Intraoral Scanners: Accuracy, Execution Time, and Patient Feedback.
    Sfondrini MF; Gandini P; Malfatto M; Di Corato F; Trovati F; Scribante A
    Biomed Res Int; 2018; 2018():4103232. PubMed ID: 29850512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants.
    Wismeijer D; Mans R; van Genuchten M; Reijers HA
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2014 Oct; 25(10):1113-8. PubMed ID: 23941118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo.
    Zimmermann M; Koller C; Rumetsch M; Ender A; Mehl A
    J Orofac Orthop; 2017 Nov; 78(6):466-471. PubMed ID: 28733810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Effect of Impression Technique and Operator Experience on Impression Time and Operator-Reported Outcomes.
    Yilmaz H; Eglenen MN; Cakmak G; Yilmaz B
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Oct; 30(8):676-683. PubMed ID: 33533132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions.
    Lee SJ; Macarthur RX; Gallucci GO
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Nov; 110(5):420-3. PubMed ID: 23998623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions.
    Wiranto MG; Engelbrecht WP; Tutein Nolthenius HE; van der Meer WJ; Ren Y
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Jan; 143(1):140-7. PubMed ID: 23273370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison between digital and conventional impression techniques in children on preference, time and comfort: A crossover randomized controlled trial.
    Bosoni C; Nieri M; Franceschi D; Souki BQ; Franchi L; Giuntini V
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2023 Nov; 26(4):585-590. PubMed ID: 36891891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.