220 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29072243)
1. Evaluation of digital model accuracy and time-dependent deformation of alginate impressions.
Cesur MG; Omurlu IK; Ozer T
Niger J Clin Pract; 2017 Sep; 20(9):1175-1181. PubMed ID: 29072243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Dimensional accuracy of digital dental models from cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions according to time elapsed after the impressions.
Lee SM; Hou Y; Cho JH; Hwang HS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Feb; 149(2):287-94. PubMed ID: 26827986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance.
Grünheid T; McCarthy SD; Larson BE
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Nov; 146(5):673-82. PubMed ID: 25439218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Digitization of dental alginate impression: Three-dimensional evaluation of point cloud.
Kim SR; Lee WS; Kim WC; Kim HY; Kim JH
Dent Mater J; 2015; 34(6):835-40. PubMed ID: 26632232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions.
Wiranto MG; Engelbrecht WP; Tutein Nolthenius HE; van der Meer WJ; Ren Y
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Jan; 143(1):140-7. PubMed ID: 23273370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner.
Camardella LT; Breuning H; de Vasconcellos Vilella O
J Orofac Orthop; 2017 May; 78(3):211-220. PubMed ID: 28074260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. From alginate impressions to digital virtual models: accuracy and reproducibility.
Dalstra M; Melsen B
J Orthod; 2009 Mar; 36(1):36-41; discussion 14. PubMed ID: 19286874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Validity of Intraoral Scans Compared with Plaster Models: An In-Vivo Comparison of Dental Measurements and 3D Surface Analysis.
Zhang F; Suh KJ; Lee KM
PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0157713. PubMed ID: 27304976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [EVALUATION OF CHANGES OF GEOMETRICAL PARAMETERS OF ALGINATE DENTAL IMPRESSIONS DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF CHEMICAL AND MICROWAVE DISINFECTION METHOD USING 3D TECHNOLOGIES].
Nespraydko VP; Shevchuk VA; Michaylov AA; Lyseyko NV
Lik Sprava; 2015; (7-8):117-23. PubMed ID: 27491163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Analysis of intra-arch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography.
White AJ; Fallis DW; Vandewalle KS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Apr; 137(4):456.e1-9; discussion 456-7. PubMed ID: 20362900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning.
Tomita Y; Uechi J; Konno M; Sasamoto S; Iijima M; Mizoguchi I
Dent Mater J; 2018 Jul; 37(4):628-633. PubMed ID: 29669951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The relationship between digital model accuracy and time-dependent deformation of alginate impressions.
Alcan T; Ceylanoğlu C; Baysal B
Angle Orthod; 2009 Jan; 79(1):30-6. PubMed ID: 19123710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of dental measurements between conventional plaster models, digital models obtained by impression scanning and plaster model scanning.
Gül Amuk N; Karsli E; Kurt G
Int Orthod; 2019 Mar; 17(1):151-158. PubMed ID: 30772351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts.
Leifert MF; Leifert MM; Efstratiadis SS; Cangialosi TJ
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Jul; 136(1):16.e1-4; discussion 16. PubMed ID: 19577140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
Ender A; Mehl A
J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Factors affecting the accuracy of elastometric impression materials.
Chen SY; Liang WM; Chen FN
J Dent; 2004 Nov; 32(8):603-9. PubMed ID: 15476954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Digital models vs plaster models using alginate and alginate substitute materials.
Torassian G; Kau CH; English JD; Powers J; Bussa HI; Marie Salas-Lopez A; Corbett JA
Angle Orthod; 2010 Jul; 80(4):474-81. PubMed ID: 20482351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of storage time on the accuracy of casts made from different irreversible hydrocolloids.
Sedda M; Casarotto A; Raustia A; Borracchini A
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 May; 9(4):59-66. PubMed ID: 18473028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions for Whole Upper Jaws, Including Full Dentitions and Palatal Soft Tissues.
Gan N; Xiong Y; Jiao T
PLoS One; 2016; 11(7):e0158800. PubMed ID: 27383409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
