501 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28385434)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
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. Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM-fabricated composite resin and ceramic crowns scanned by 2 intraoral cameras.
de Paula Silveira AC; Chaves SB; Hilgert LA; Ribeiro AP
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Mar; 117(3):386-392. PubMed ID: 27677214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated from conventional and digital impressions assessed with micro-CT.
Kim JH; Jeong JH; Lee JH; Cho HW
J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Oct; 116(4):551-557. PubMed ID: 27422237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Influence of scanner, powder application, and adjustments on CAD-CAM crown misfit.
Prudente MS; Davi LR; Nabbout KO; Prado CJ; Pereira LM; Zancopé K; Neves FD
J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Mar; 119(3):377-383. PubMed ID: 28689912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems.
Shembesh M; Ali A; Finkelman M; Weber HP; Zandparsa R
J Prosthodont; 2017 Oct; 26(7):581-586. PubMed ID: 26855068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accuracy of 3D Printed and Digital Casts Produced from Intraoral and Extraoral Scanners with Different Scanning Technologies: In Vitro Study.
Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
J Prosthodont; 2022 Jul; 31(6):521-528. PubMed ID: 34661950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of the acquisition accuracy and digitizing noise of 9 intraoral and extraoral scanners: An objective method.
Dupagne L; Tapie L; Lebon N; Mawussi B
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1032-1040. PubMed ID: 33781577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Comparison of an indirect impression scanning system and two direct intraoral scanning systems in vivo.
Bosniac P; Rehmann P; Wöstmann B
Clin Oral Investig; 2019 May; 23(5):2421-2427. PubMed ID: 30298453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of intraoral scans: An in vivo study of different scanning devices.
Kernen F; Schlager S; Seidel Alvarez V; Mehrhof J; Vach K; Kohal R; Nelson K; Flügge T
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Dec; 128(6):1303-1309. PubMed ID: 33902891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan.
Park GH; Son K; Lee KB
J Prosthet Dent; 2019 May; 121(5):803-810. PubMed ID: 30598314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
