1343 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28222873)
1. 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]
2. Positional trueness of abutments by using a digital die-merging protocol compared with complete arch direct digital scans and conventional dental impressions.
Jelicich A; Scialabba R; Lee SJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Feb; 131(2):293-300. PubMed ID: 35430047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
Ender A; Mehl A
J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients' preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material.
Sakornwimon N; Leevailoj C
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):386-391. PubMed ID: 28222872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Marginal and Internal Fit of CAD/CAM Crowns Fabricated Over Reverse Tapered Preparations.
Carbajal Mejía JB; Yatani H; Wakabayashi K; Nakamura T
J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):e477-e484. PubMed ID: 29194841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Accuracy of a chairside intraoral scanner compared with a laboratory scanner for the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro 3-dimensional comparative analysis.
Zarone F; Ruggiero G; Ferrari M; Mangano F; Joda T; Sorrentino R
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Dec; 124(6):761.e1-761.e7. PubMed ID: 33289647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Accuracy of three digital scanning methods for complete-arch tooth preparation: An in vitro comparison.
Gao H; Liu X; Liu M; Yang X; Tan J
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1001-1008. PubMed ID: 33736864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques.
Malik J; Rodriguez J; Weisbloom M; Petridis H
Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(2):107-113. PubMed ID: 29518805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.
Ender A; Zimmermann M; Mehl A
Int J Comput Dent; 2019; 22(1):11-19. PubMed ID: 30848250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: An in vitro study.
Yilmaz B; Gouveia D; Marques VR; Diker E; Schimmel M; Abou-Ayash S
J Dent; 2021 Jul; 110():103684. PubMed ID: 33961938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods.
Cho SH; Schaefer O; Thompson GA; Guentsch A
J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Apr; 113(4):310-5. PubMed ID: 25682531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.
Papaspyridakos P; Gallucci GO; Chen CJ; Hanssen S; Naert I; Vandenberghe B
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Apr; 27(4):465-72. PubMed ID: 25682892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An
Sason GK; Mistry G; Tabassum R; Shetty O
J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2018; 18(2):108-116. PubMed ID: 29692563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison.
Keul C; Güth JF
Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Feb; 24(2):735-745. PubMed ID: 31134345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
