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 *

267 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27706225)

  • 1. Examination of the Position Accuracy of Implant Abutments Reproduced by Intra-Oral Optical Impression.
    Ajioka H; Kihara H; Odaira C; Kobayashi T; Kondo H
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(10):e0164048. PubMed ID: 27706225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners.
    Fukazawa S; Odaira C; Kondo H
    J Prosthodont Res; 2017 Oct; 61(4):450-459. PubMed ID: 28216020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.
    Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions.
    Vigolo P; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):186-92. PubMed ID: 12616240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. In vitro comparative analysis of scanning accuracy of intraoral and laboratory scanners in measuring the distance between multiple implants.
    Natsubori R; Fukazawa S; Chiba T; Tanabe N; Kihara H; Kondo H
    Int J Implant Dent; 2022 Apr; 8(1):18. PubMed ID: 35416598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners.
    Lee JJ; Jeong ID; Park JY; Jeon JH; Kim JH; Kim WC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Feb; 117(2):253-259. PubMed ID: 27666500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study.
    Ma B; Yue X; Sun Y; Peng L; Geng W
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Dec; 21(1):636. PubMed ID: 34893053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Accuracy of implant impression techniques with a scannable healing abutment.
    Jung HT; Kim HY; Song SY; Park JH; Lee JY
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Oct; 128(4):729-734. PubMed ID: 33832762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Atraumatic intraoral scans and virtual hybrid casts for custom implant abutments and zirconia implants: Accuracy of the workflow.
    Schubert O; Edelhoff D; Schweiger J; Güth JF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jun; 129(6):920-929. PubMed ID: 34598772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine.
    Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Accuracy of Scanned Stock Abutments Using Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study.
    Kim JE; Hong YS; Kang YJ; Kim JH; Shim JS
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Aug; 28(7):797-803. PubMed ID: 31250506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Accuracy of Three Digitization Methods for the Dental Arch with Various Tooth Preparation Designs: An In Vitro Study.
    Oh KC; Lee B; Park YB; Moon HS
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):195-201. PubMed ID: 30427097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Master cast accuracy in single-tooth implant replacement cases: an in vitro comparison. A technical note.
    Vigolo P; Fonzi F; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2005; 20(3):455-60. PubMed ID: 15973958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Precision and Accuracy of a Digital Impression Scanner in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation.
    Pesce P; Pera F; Setti P; Menini M
    Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(2):171-175. PubMed ID: 29518813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Fit of implant-supported fixed prostheses fabricated on master casts made from a dental stone and a dental plaster.
    Wise M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Nov; 86(5):532-8. PubMed ID: 11725282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Accuracy of photogrammetry and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an
    Sun YJ; Ma BW; Yue XX; Lin X; Geng W
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2022 Feb; 57(2):168-172. PubMed ID: 35152653
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparative study of the accuracy of an implant intraoral scanner and that of a conventional intraoral scanner for complete-arch fixed dental prostheses.
    Sallorenzo A; Gómez-Polo M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1009-1016. PubMed ID: 33836855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.