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 *

1352 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28222873)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study.
    Lin WS; Harris BT; Elathamna EN; Abdel-Azim T; Morton D
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(1):102-9. PubMed ID: 25615919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Internal fit of pressed and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing ceramic crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.
    Anadioti E; Aquilino SA; Gratton DG; Holloway JA; Denry IL; Thomas GW; Qian F
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Apr; 113(4):304-9. PubMed ID: 25488521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Comparison of the Fit of Lithium Disilicate Crowns made from Conventional, Digital, or Conventional/Digital Techniques.
    Al Hamad KQ; Al Rashdan BA; Al Omari WM; Baba NZ
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):e580-e586. PubMed ID: 30091168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Trueness and precision of complete arch dentate digital models produced by intraoral and desktop scanners: An ex-vivo study.
    Vag J; Stevens CD; Badahman MH; Ludlow M; Sharp M; Brenes C; Mennito A; Renne W
    J Dent; 2023 Dec; 139():104764. PubMed ID: 37898433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. In vitro evaluation of the accuracy and precision of intraoral and extraoral complete-arch scans.
    Baghani MT; Shayegh SS; Johnston WM; Shidfar S; Hakimaneh SMR
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Nov; 126(5):665-670. PubMed ID: 33070974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Evaluation of accuracy of complete-arch multiple-unit abutment-level dental implant impressions using different impression and splinting materials.
    Buzayan M; Baig MR; Yunus N
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(6):1512-20. PubMed ID: 24278919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study.
    Vecsei B; Joós-Kovács G; Borbély J; Hermann P
    J Prosthodont Res; 2017 Apr; 61(2):177-184. PubMed ID: 27461088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques.
    Lyu M; Di P; Lin Y; Jiang X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1017-1023. PubMed ID: 33640093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study.
    Alkindi S; Hamdoon Z; Aziz AM
    J Dent; 2024 Jul; 146():105045. PubMed ID: 38714241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Local accuracy of actual intraoral scanning systems for single-tooth preparations in vitro.
    Zimmermann M; Ender A; Mehl A
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2020 Feb; 151(2):127-135. PubMed ID: 31883705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Three-dimensional analysis of the accuracy of conventional and completely digital interocclusal registration methods.
    Ries JM; Grünler C; Wichmann M; Matta RE
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):994-1000. PubMed ID: 33888327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Evaluation of the fit of zirconia copings fabricated by direct and indirect digital scanning procedures.
    Lee B; Oh KC; Haam D; Lee JH; Moon HS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):225-231. PubMed ID: 29428522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods.
    Ng J; Ruse D; Wyatt C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Sep; 112(3):555-60. PubMed ID: 24630399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners.
    Jeon JH; Choi BY; Kim CM; Kim JH; Kim HY; Kim WC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):549-53. PubMed ID: 26182854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 68.