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 *

202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28630956)

  • 1. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral and extraoral scanners: an in vitro study using a new method of evaluation.
    Muallah J; Wesemann C; Nowak R; Robben J; Mah J; Pospiech P; Bumann A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2017; 20(2):151-164. PubMed ID: 28630956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: A comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing.
    Wesemann C; Muallah J; Mah J; Bumann A
    Quintessence Int; 2017; 48(1):41-50. PubMed ID: 27834416
    [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. [Comparative analysis of 3D data accuracy of single tooth and full dental arch captured by different intraoral and laboratory digital impression systems].
    Ryakhovskiy AN; Kostyukova VV
    Stomatologiia (Mosk); 2016; 95(4):65-70. PubMed ID: 27636766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An in-vitro study comparing the accuracy of ?full-arch casts digitized with desktop scanners.
    Nowak R; Wesemann C; Robben J; Muallah J; Bumann A
    Quintessence Int; 2017 Jul; ():667-676. PubMed ID: 28740969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Suitability and accuracy of CBCT model scan: an in vitro study.
    Robben J; Muallah J; Wesemann C; Nowak R; Mah J; Pospiech P; Bumann A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2017; 20(4):363-375. PubMed ID: 29292411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effect of auxiliary geometric devices on the accuracy of intraoral scans in full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations: An in vitro study.
    Canullo L; Pesce P; Caponio VCA; Iacono R; Luciani FS; Raffone C; Menini M
    J Dent; 2024 Jun; 145():104979. PubMed ID: 38556193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Precision of Dental Implant Digitization Using Intraoral Scanners.
    Flügge TV; Att W; Metzger MC; Nelson K
    Int J Prosthodont; 2016; 29(3):277-83. PubMed ID: 27148990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence.
    Diker B; Tak Ö
    Int J Prosthodont; 2021; 34(1):101-108. PubMed ID: 33570525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.
    Renne W; Ludlow M; Fryml J; Schurch Z; Mennito A; Kessler R; Lauer A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Jul; 118(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 28024822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison.
    Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Nyström I; Thor A
    BMC Oral Health; 2018 Feb; 18(1):27. PubMed ID: 29471825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review of Influencing Factors.
    Abduo J; Elseyoufi M
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2018 Aug; 26(3):101-121. PubMed ID: 29989757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Comparative analysis of 3D data visibility of the prepared tooth finishing line on a synthetic jaw model, captured by international scanners in a laboratory conditions].
    Ryakhovskiy AN; Kostyukova VV
    Stomatologiia (Mosk); 2016; 95(5):39-46. PubMed ID: 27876722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners.
    Di Fiore A; Meneghello R; Graiff L; Savio G; Vigolo P; Monaco C; Stellini E
    J Prosthodont Res; 2019 Oct; 63(4):396-403. PubMed ID: 31072730
    [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. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data.
    Patzelt SB; Bishti S; Stampf S; Att W
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Nov; 145(11):1133-40. PubMed ID: 25359645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Influence of Intra-Oral Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns.
    Ferrini F; Sannino G; Chiola C; Capparé P; Gastaldi G; Gherlone EF
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2019 Feb; 16(4):. PubMed ID: 30769768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Full arch precision of six intraoral scanners in vitro.
    Osnes CA; Wu JH; Venezia P; Ferrari M; Keeling AJ
    J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Jan; 64(1):6-11. PubMed ID: 31227447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.