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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28186514)

  • 1. [To bite or to scan? Dental impressions with alginate, PVS or -intra-oral scanning; processing time and patient comfort. A pilotstudy].
    Darroudi M; Ariens ZP; Zinsmeister VZ; Breuning KH
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 2017 Feb; 124(2):91-95. PubMed ID: 28186514
    [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. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Digitization of dental alginate impression: Three-dimensional evaluation of point cloud.
    Kim SR; Lee WS; Kim WC; Kim HY; Kim JH
    Dent Mater J; 2015; 34(6):835-40. PubMed ID: 26632232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. [Clinical evaluation of two types of fixed partial denture impressions].
    Shi LS; Wang LK; Zhang XJ
    Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2007 Oct; 25(5):485-6. PubMed ID: 18072566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Analysis of intra-arch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography.
    White AJ; Fallis DW; Vandewalle KS
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Apr; 137(4):456.e1-9; discussion 456-7. PubMed ID: 20362900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.
    Anadioti E; Aquilino SA; Gratton DG; Holloway JA; Denry I; Thomas GW; Qian F
    J Prosthodont; 2014 Dec; 23(8):610-7. PubMed ID: 24995593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models reconstructed from digital intraoral impressions.
    Brown GB; Currier GF; Kadioglu O; Kierl JP
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Nov; 154(5):733-739. PubMed ID: 30384944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Effects of mixing technique on bubble formation in alginate impression material.
    McDaniel TF; Kramer RT; Im F; Snow D
    Gen Dent; 2013; 61(6):35-9. PubMed ID: 24064161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Is It Cost Effective to Add an Intraoral Scanner to an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Practice?
    Resnick CM; Doyle M; Calabrese CE; Sanchez K; Padwa BL
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2019 Aug; 77(8):1687-1694. PubMed ID: 30991020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.