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.
172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27644177)
1. Development of a digital impression procedure using photogrammetry for complete denture fabrication. Matsuda T; Goto T; Kurahashi K; Kashiwabara T; Ichikawa T Int J Comput Dent; 2016; 19(3):193-202. PubMed ID: 27644177 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses. Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques. Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Mancl L; Brudvik JS; Raigrodski AJ J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Oct; 110(4):243-51. PubMed ID: 24079558 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A Technique for Digital Impression and Bite Registration for a Single Edentulous Arch. Fang Y; Fang JH; Jeong SM; Choi BH J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):e519-e523. PubMed ID: 29522269 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Three-dimensional differences between intraoral scans and conventional impressions of edentulous jaws: A clinical study. Lo Russo L; Caradonna G; Troiano G; Salamini A; Guida L; Ciavarella D J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Feb; 123(2):264-268. PubMed ID: 31153614 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracy of implant abutment level digital impressions using stereophotogrammetry in edentulous jaws: an in vitro pilot study. Zhou Y; You L; Fan Z BMC Oral Health; 2024 Oct; 24(1):1167. PubMed ID: 39354443 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of accuracy of photogrammetry with 3D scanning and conventional impression method for craniomaxillofacial defects using a software analysis. Beri A; Pisulkar SK; Bagde AD; Bansod A; Dahihandekar C; Paikrao B Trials; 2022 Dec; 23(1):1048. PubMed ID: 36575547 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Part-Digitizing System of Impression and Interocclusal Record for Complete Denture Fabrication. Matsuda T; Goto T; Yagi K; Kashiwabara T; Ichikawa T J Prosthodont; 2016 Aug; 25(6):503-9. PubMed ID: 26619371 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Digital assessment of preliminary impression accuracy for edentulous jaws: Comparisons of 3-dimensional surfaces between study and working casts. Matsuda T; Goto T; Kurahashi K; Kashiwabara T; Watanabe M; Tomotake Y; Nagao K; Ichikawa T J Prosthodont Res; 2016 Jul; 60(3):206-12. PubMed ID: 26822762 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Computer aided design and 3-dimensional printing for the production of custom trays of maxillary edentulous jaws based on 3-dimensional scan of primary impression]. Chen H; Zhao T; Wang Y; Sun YC Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2016 Oct; 48(5):900-904. PubMed ID: 27752178 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Feasibility and Accuracy of Digitizing Edentulous Maxillectomy Defects: A Comparative Study. Elbashti ME; Hattori M; Patzelt SB; Schulze D; Sumita YI; Taniguchi H Int J Prosthodont; 2017; 30(2):147-149. PubMed ID: 28267823 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. Patzelt SB; Vonau S; Stampf S; Att W J Am Dent Assoc; 2013 Aug; 144(8):914-20. PubMed ID: 23904578 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Photogrammetry and conventional impressions for recording implant positions: a comparative laboratory study. Ortorp A; Jemt T; Bäck T Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2005; 7(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15903174 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Digital impression and jaw relation record for the fabrication of CAD/CAM custom tray. Kanazawa M; Iwaki M; Arakida T; Minakuchi S J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Oct; 62(4):509-513. PubMed ID: 29555174 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Intraoral optical impression versus conventional impression for fully edentulous maxilla: an in vivo comparative study. Willmann C; Deschamps A; Taddei-Gross C; Musset AM; Lai C; Etienne O Int J Comput Dent; 2024 Mar; 27(1):19-26. PubMed ID: 36815624 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Computerized optical impression making of edentulous jaws - An in vivo feasibility study. Hack G; Liberman L; Vach K; Tchorz JP; Kohal RJ; Patzelt SBM J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Oct; 64(4):444-453. PubMed ID: 32061572 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]