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)

  • 41. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners.
    Bohner LOL; De Luca Canto G; Marció BS; Laganá DC; Sesma N; Tortamano Neto P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Nov; 118(5):617-623. PubMed ID: 28385434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. A comparative study assessing the precision and trueness of digital and printed casts produced from several intraoral and extraoral scanners in full arch and short span (3-unit FPD) scanning: An in vitro study.
    Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Jun; 32(5):423-430. PubMed ID: 35852379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.
    Amin S; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Nov; 28(11):1360-1367. PubMed ID: 28039903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study.
    Ma B; Yue X; Sun Y; Peng L; Geng W
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Dec; 21(1):636. PubMed ID: 34893053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Evaluation of the accuracy of direct intraoral scanner impressions for digital post and core in various post lengths: An in-vitro study.
    Almalki A; Conejo J; Kutkut N; Blatz M; Hai Q; Anadioti E
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Apr; 36(4):673-679. PubMed ID: 37921014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study.
    Alshawaf B; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):835-842. PubMed ID: 29926977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    Quintessence Int; 2015 Jan; 46(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 25019118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial.
    Dohiem MM; Abdelaziz MS; Abdalla MF; Fawzy AM
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Nov; 22(1):486. PubMed ID: 36371189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Accuracy and precision of occlusal contacts of stereolithographic casts mounted by digital interocclusal registrations.
    Krahenbuhl JT; Cho SH; Irelan J; Bansal NK
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Aug; 116(2):231-6. PubMed ID: 27068319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of conventional impressions versus digital scans for the all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch: An in vitro study.
    Marshaha NJ; Azhari AA; Assery MK; Ahmed WM
    J Prosthodont; 2024 Feb; 33(2):171-179. PubMed ID: 36811911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Accuracy of Three Digitization Methods for the Dental Arch with Various Tooth Preparation Designs: An In Vitro Study.
    Oh KC; Lee B; Park YB; Moon HS
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):195-201. PubMed ID: 30427097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness.
    Persson AS; Odén A; Andersson M; Sandborgh-Englund G
    Dent Mater; 2009 Jul; 25(7):929-36. PubMed ID: 19264353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Accuracy of impression-making methods in edentulous arches: An in vitro study encompassing conventional and digital methods.
    Li J; Moon HS; Kim JH; Yoon HI; Oh KC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):479-486. PubMed ID: 33583617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra-oral scanning devices.
    Palantza E; Sykaras N; Zoidis P; Kourtis S
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Aug; 36(8):1179-1198. PubMed ID: 38534043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study.
    Jeong ID; Lee JJ; Jeon JH; Kim JH; Kim HY; Kim WC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Jun; 115(6):755-9. PubMed ID: 26794703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Effect of coded healing abutment height and position on the trueness of digital intraoral implant scans.
    Batak B; Yilmaz B; Shah K; Rathi R; Schimmel M; Lang L
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Mar; 123(3):466-472. PubMed ID: 31542216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. [Precision of digital impressions with TRIOS under simulated intraoral impression taking conditions].
    Yang X; Sun YF; Tian L; Si WJ; Feng HL; Liu YH
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2015 Feb; 47(1):85-9. PubMed ID: 25686335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae.
    Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P; Tsigarida A; Romeo D; Chen YW; Natto Z; Ercoli C
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Apr; 29(4):281-286. PubMed ID: 32166793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. [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]  

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