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 *

500 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28944372)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Digital Impressions in Implant Dentistry: A Literature Review.
    Marques S; Ribeiro P; Falcão C; Lemos BF; Ríos-Carrasco B; Ríos-Santos JV; Herrero-Climent M
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 Jan; 18(3):. PubMed ID: 33498902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with or without scanbody splinting: An in vitro study.
    Pozzi A; Arcuri L; Lio F; Papa A; Nardi A; Londono J
    J Dent; 2022 Apr; 119():104072. PubMed ID: 35189313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Solid index impression protocol: a hybrid workflow for high accuracy and passive fit of full-arch implant-supported restorations.
    Mandelli F; Zaetta A; Cucchi A; Mangano FG
    Int J Comput Dent; 2020; 23(2):161-181. PubMed ID: 32555769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Accuracy of digital impressions versus conventional impressions for 2 implants: an in vitro study evaluating the effect of implant angulation.
    Abduo J; Palamara JEA
    Int J Implant Dent; 2021 Jul; 7(1):75. PubMed ID: 34327601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. An In Vitro Study of Factors Influencing the Performance of Digital Intraoral Impressions Operating on Active Wavefront Sampling Technology with Multiple Implants in the Edentulous Maxilla.
    Gimenez-Gonzalez B; Hassan B; Özcan M; Pradíes G
    J Prosthodont; 2017 Dec; 26(8):650-655. PubMed ID: 26934046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth.
    Giménez B; Özcan M; Martínez-Rus F; Pradíes G
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2014; 29(4):853-62. PubMed ID: 25032765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. ACCURACY OF INTRAORAL SCANNERS VERSUS TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS: A RAPID UMBRELLA REVIEW.
    Afrashtehfar KI; Alnakeb NA; Assery MKM
    J Evid Based Dent Pract; 2022 Sep; 22(3):101719. PubMed ID: 36162879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Accuracy of Digital Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.
    Giachetti L; Sarti C; Cinelli F; Russo DS
    Int J Prosthodont; 2020; 33(2):192-201. PubMed ID: 32069344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth.
    Giménez B; Özcan M; Martínez-Rus F; Pradíes G
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2015 Jan; 17 Suppl 1():e54-64. PubMed ID: 23879869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review.
    Ahlholm P; Sipilä K; Vallittu P; Jakonen M; Kotiranta U
    J Prosthodont; 2018 Jan; 27(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 27483210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. In vitro assessment of the accuracy of digital impressions prepared using a single system for full-arch restorations on implants.
    Ciocca L; Meneghello R; Monaco C; Savio G; Scheda L; Gatto MR; Baldissara P
    Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2018 Jul; 13(7):1097-1108. PubMed ID: 29500759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. A fully digital approach to replicate functional and aesthetic parameters in implant-supported full-arch rehabilitation.
    Monaco C; Ragazzini N; Scheda L; Evangelisti E
    J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Jul; 62(3):383-385. PubMed ID: 29191608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression.
    Kim KR; Seo KY; Kim S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Dec; 122(6):543-549. PubMed ID: 30955939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method.
    Schmidt A; Rein PE; Wöstmann B; Schlenz MA
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2021 Apr; 32(4):460-469. PubMed ID: 33469983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Digital Implant Impression Technique Accuracy: A Systematic Review.
    Alikhasi M; Alsharbaty MHM; Moharrami M
    Implant Dent; 2017 Dec; 26(6):929-935. PubMed ID: 29095786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 25.