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 *

183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29191609)

  • 21. Comparative evaluation of the effects of implant position, impression material, and tray type on implant impression accuracy.
    Gökçen-Rohlig B; Ongül D; Sancakli E; Sermet B
    Implant Dent; 2014 Jun; 23(3):283-8. PubMed ID: 24844388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Evaluation of accuracy of multiple dental implant impressions using various splinting materials.
    Hariharan R; Shankar C; Rajan M; Baig MR; Azhagarasan NS
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(1):38-44. PubMed ID: 20209185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays.
    Johnson GH; Mancl LA; Schwedhelm ER; Verhoef DR; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Jan; 103(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 20105676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Accuracy of complete-arch implant impression made with occlusal registration material.
    Papazoglou E; Wee AG; Carr AB; Urban I; Margaritis V
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):143-148. PubMed ID: 31079882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch.
    Tan MY; Yee SHX; Wong KM; Tan YH; Tan KBC
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(2):366–380. PubMed ID: 30521661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of the accuracy of plastic and metal stock trays for implant impressions.
    Del'acqua MA; de Avila ÉD; Amaral ÂL; Pinelli LA; de Assis Mollo F
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(3):544-50. PubMed ID: 22616047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro comparative study.
    Sorrentino R; Gherlone EF; Calesini G; Zarone F
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2010 May; 12 Suppl 1():e63-76. PubMed ID: 19438937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: an in vitro study.
    Caputi S; Varvara G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Apr; 99(4):274-81. PubMed ID: 18395537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Comparison of the transfer precision of three different impression materials in combination with transfer caps for the Frialit-2 system.
    Lorenzoni M; Pertl C; Penkner K; Polansky R; Sedaj B; Wegscheider WA
    J Oral Rehabil; 2000 Jul; 27(7):629-38. PubMed ID: 10931257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of accuracy of casts of multiple internal connection implant prosthesis obtained from different impression materials and techniques: an in vitro study.
    Pujari M; Garg P; Prithviraj DR
    J Oral Implantol; 2014 Apr; 40(2):137-45. PubMed ID: 24456531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effect of dental implant angulation on the dimensional accuracy of master casts.
    Barjini N; Sayahpour S; Jafari M
    Dent Med Probl; 2021; 58(4):473-482. PubMed ID: 34994115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Accuracy of 3 different impression techniques for internal connection angulated implants.
    Tsagkalidis G; Tortopidis D; Mpikos P; Kaisarlis G; Koidis P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):517-23. PubMed ID: 26213265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Analysis of three-dimensional distortion of two impression materials in the transfer of dental implants.
    Aguilar ML; Elias A; Vizcarrondo CE; Psoter WJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Apr; 103(4):202-9. PubMed ID: 20362763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Accuracy of 2 impression techniques for ITI implants.
    Akça K; Cehreli MC
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2004; 19(4):517-23. PubMed ID: 15346748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Accuracy of a self-perforating impression tray for dental implants.
    Marotti J; Tortamano P; Castilho TR; Steagall W; Wolfart S; Haselhuhn K
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Oct; 112(4):843-8. PubMed ID: 24787129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure.
    Menini M; Setti P; Pera F; Pera P; Pesce P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Apr; 22(3):1253-1262. PubMed ID: 28965251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A laboratory investigation of the accuracy of two impression techniques for single-tooth implants.
    Daoudi MF; Setchell DJ; Searson LJ
    Int J Prosthodont; 2001; 14(2):152-8. PubMed ID: 11843452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A laboratory investigation of the accuracy of the repositioning impression coping technique at the implant level for single-tooth implants.
    Daoudi MF; Setchell DJ; Searson LJ
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2003 Mar; 11(1):23-8. PubMed ID: 12705035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.
    Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Accuracy of implant impressions with different impression coping types and shapes.
    Rashidan N; Alikhasi M; Samadizadeh S; Beyabanaki E; Kharazifard MJ
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 Apr; 14(2):218-25. PubMed ID: 19804420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.