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 *

334 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28216020)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. [Accuracy of three intraoral scans for primary impressions of edentulous jaws].
    Cao Y; Chen JK; Deng KH; Wang Y; Sun YC; Zhao YJ
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Feb; 52(1):129-137. PubMed ID: 32071476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: A single-blinded in vitro study.
    Michelinakis G; Apostolakis D; Tsagarakis A; Kourakis G; Pavlakis E
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Nov; 124(5):581-588. PubMed ID: 31870614
    [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. Understanding the effect of scan spans on the accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners.
    Chen Y; Zhai Z; Watanabe S; Nakano T; Ishigaki S
    J Dent; 2022 Sep; 124():104220. PubMed ID: 35817227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. [Accuracy analysis of full-arch implant digital impressions when using a geometric feature].
    Ke YF; Zhang YP; Chen JK; Chen H; Wang Y; Sun YC
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2022 Feb; 57(2):162-167. PubMed ID: 35152652
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Influence of different material substrates on the accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: A single-blinded in vitro study.
    Michelinakis G; Apostolakis D; Tsagarakis A; Lampropoulos P
    Int J Prosthodont; 2022; 35(1):82–93. PubMed ID: 33751003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body system and different intraoral scanners: An in vitro study.
    Çakmak G; Donmez MB; Atalay S; Yilmaz H; Kökat AM; Yilmaz B
    J Dent; 2021 Oct; 113():103773. PubMed ID: 34384842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners.
    Dutton E; Ludlow M; Mennito A; Kelly A; Evans Z; Culp A; Kessler R; Renne W
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2020 Mar; 32(2):204-218. PubMed ID: 31568660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.
    Carbajal Mejía JB; Wakabayashi K; Nakamura T; Yatani H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):392-399. PubMed ID: 28222873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A new method to measure the accuracy of intraoral scanners along the complete dental arch: A pilot study.
    Iturrate M; Lizundia E; Amezua X; Solaberrieta E
    J Adv Prosthodont; 2019 Dec; 11(6):331-340. PubMed ID: 31897272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Influence of Liquid on the Tooth Surface on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study.
    Chen Y; Zhai Z; Li H; Yamada S; Matsuoka T; Ono S; Nakano T
    J Prosthodont; 2022 Jan; 31(1):59-64. PubMed ID: 33829613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Influence of Preparation Type and Tooth Geometry on the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners.
    Ashraf Y; Sabet A; Hamdy A; Ebeid K
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Dec; 29(9):800-804. PubMed ID: 32406156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.