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 *

434 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27636766)

  • 21. Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence.
    Diker B; Tak Ö
    Int J Prosthodont; 2021; 34(1):101-108. PubMed ID: 33570525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2011; 14(1):11-21. PubMed ID: 21657122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Scanning Accuracy of 10 Intraoral Scanners for Single-crown and Three-unit Fixed Denture Preparations: An In Vitro Study.
    Zhang XY; Cao Y; Hu ZW; Wang Y; Chen H; Sun YC
    Chin J Dent Res; 2022 Sep; 25(3):215-222. PubMed ID: 36102891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method.
    Nagy Z; Simon B; Mennito A; Evans Z; Renne W; Vág J
    BMC Oral Health; 2020 Apr; 20(1):97. PubMed ID: 32264943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Evaluation of intraoral digital impressions for obtaining gingival contour in the esthetic zone: accuracy outcomes.
    Wei D; Di P; Tian J; Zhao Y; Lin Y
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Apr; 24(4):1401-1410. PubMed ID: 31754870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation.
    Kim RJ; Park JM; Shim JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):895-903.e1. PubMed ID: 30006228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study.
    Jeong ID; Lee JJ; Jeon JH; Kim JH; Kim HY; Kim WC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Jun; 115(6):755-9. PubMed ID: 26794703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients.
    Boeddinghaus M; Breloer ES; Rehmann P; Wöstmann B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2015 Nov; 19(8):2027-34. PubMed ID: 25693497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Comparison of the accuracy of optical impression systems in three different clinical situations.
    Doukantzi M; Mojon P; Todorovic A; Chebib N; Pjetursson BE; Maniewicz S; Sailer I
    Int J Prosthodont; 2021; 34(4):511–517. PubMed ID: 33625388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data.
    Patzelt SB; Bishti S; Stampf S; Att W
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Nov; 145(11):1133-40. PubMed ID: 25359645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners.
    Treesh JC; Liacouras PC; Taft RM; Brooks DI; Raiciulescu S; Ellert DO; Grant GT; Ye L
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):382-388. PubMed ID: 29724554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses.
    Bilmenoglu C; Cilingir A; Geckili O; Bilhan H; Bilgin T
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Dec; 124(6):755-760. PubMed ID: 31987587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison.
    Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Nyström I; Thor A
    BMC Oral Health; 2018 Feb; 18(1):27. PubMed ID: 29471825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions.
    Ender A; Attin T; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Mar; 115(3):313-20. PubMed ID: 26548890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. A comparative study assessing the precision and trueness of digital and printed casts produced from several intraoral and extraoral scanners in full arch and short span (3-unit FPD) scanning: An in vitro study.
    Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Jun; 32(5):423-430. PubMed ID: 35852379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners.
    Patzelt SB; Emmanouilidi A; Stampf S; Strub JR; Att W
    Clin Oral Investig; 2014 Jul; 18(6):1687-94. PubMed ID: 24240949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Accuracy of four recent intraoral scanners with respect to two different ceramic surfaces.
    Yatmaz BB; Raith S; Reich S
    J Dent; 2023 Mar; 130():104414. PubMed ID: 36640842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.