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 *

371 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27863856)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. Evaluation of the accuracy of 2 digital intraoral scanners: A 3D analysis study.
    Alzahrani SJ; El-Hammali H; Morgano SM; Elkassaby H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Dec; 126(6):787-792. PubMed ID: 33172647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. Fit and retention of complete denture bases: Part II - conventional impressions versus digital scans: A clinical controlled crossover study.
    Chebib N; Imamura Y; El Osta N; Srinivasan M; Müller F; Maniewicz S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Apr; 131(4):618-625. PubMed ID: 36055812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows.
    Sim JY; Jang Y; Kim WC; Kim HY; Lee DH; Kim JH
    J Prosthodont Res; 2019 Jan; 63(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 29615324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle.
    Nagata K; Fuchigami K; Okuhama Y; Wakamori K; Tsuruoka H; Nakashizu T; Hoshi N; Atsumi M; Kimoto K; Kawana H
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Sep; 21(1):464. PubMed ID: 34556111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses.
    Takeuchi Y; Koizumi H; Furuchi M; Sato Y; Ohkubo C; Matsumura H
    J Oral Sci; 2018; 60(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 29576569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review.
    Sanda M; Miyoshi K; Baba K
    Int J Implant Dent; 2021 Jul; 7(1):97. PubMed ID: 34312701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner.
    Revilla-León M; Subramanian SG; Özcan M; Krishnamurthy VR
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Feb; 29(2):107-113. PubMed ID: 31860144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression.
    Su TS; Sun J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Sep; 116(3):362-7. PubMed ID: 27061628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Full arch precision of six intraoral scanners in vitro.
    Osnes CA; Wu JH; Venezia P; Ferrari M; Keeling AJ
    J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Jan; 64(1):6-11. PubMed ID: 31227447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Accuracy of digital technologies for the scanning of facial, skeletal, and intraoral tissues: A systematic review.
    Bohner L; Gamba DD; Hanisch M; Marcio BS; Tortamano Neto P; Laganá DC; Sesma N
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Feb; 121(2):246-251. PubMed ID: 30017156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Precision of Dental Implant Digitization Using Intraoral Scanners.
    Flügge TV; Att W; Metzger MC; Nelson K
    Int J Prosthodont; 2016; 29(3):277-83. PubMed ID: 27148990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Accuracy of Digital Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.
    Giachetti L; Sarti C; Cinelli F; Russo DS
    Int J Prosthodont; 2020; 33(2):192-201. PubMed ID: 32069344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses.
    Mizumoto RM; Yilmaz B; McGlumphy EA; Seidt J; Johnston WM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):96-104. PubMed ID: 31040026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Papaspyridakos P; Vazouras K; Chen YW; Kotina E; Natto Z; Kang K; Chochlidakis K
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Oct; 29(8):660-678. PubMed ID: 32613641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Effect of assistive devices on the precision of digital impressions for implants placed in edentulous maxilla: an in vitro study.
    Masu R; Tanaka S; Sanda M; Miyoshi K; Baba K
    Int J Implant Dent; 2021 Dec; 7(1):116. PubMed ID: 34902092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.
    Renne W; Ludlow M; Fryml J; Schurch Z; Mennito A; Kessler R; Lauer A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Jul; 118(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 28024822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.