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 *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29191609)

  • 61. Randomized controlled clinical trial on the three-dimensional accuracy of fast-set impression materials.
    Rudolph H; Quaas S; Haim M; Preißler J; Walter MH; Koch R; Luthardt RG
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Jun; 17(5):1397-406. PubMed ID: 22936298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. 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]  

  • 63. Comparison of impression techniques and materials for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA; Chávez AM; Amaral AL; Compagnoni MA; Mollo Fde A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(4):771-6. PubMed ID: 20657873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Effect of Arch Size and Implant Angulations on the Accuracy of Implant Impressions.
    Mir Mohammad Rezaei S; Geramipanah F; Kamali H; Sadighpour L; Payaminia L
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2021 Nov; 29(4):218-222. PubMed ID: 33934578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Effect of implant angulation and impression technique on impressions of NobelActive implants.
    Alexander Hazboun GB; Masri R; Romberg E; Kempler J; Driscoll CF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 May; 113(5):425-31. PubMed ID: 25749089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Accuracy of different definitive impression techniques with the all-on-4 protocol.
    Ozan O; Hamis O
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Jun; 121(6):941-948. PubMed ID: 30661881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Accuracy of replacing three tapered transfer impression copings in two elastomeric impression materials.
    Liou AD; Nicholls JI; Yuodelis RA; Brudvik JS
    Int J Prosthodont; 1993; 6(4):377-83. PubMed ID: 8240649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Effect of splinting in accuracy of two implant impression techniques.
    de Avila ED; de Matos Moraes F; Castanharo SM; Del'Acqua MA; de Assis Mollo F
    J Oral Implantol; 2014 Dec; 40(6):633-9. PubMed ID: 25506658
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Implant impression accuracy of parallel and non-parallel implants: a comparative in-vitro analysis of open and closed tray techniques.
    Osman MS; Ziada HM; Abubakr NH; Suliman AM
    Int J Implant Dent; 2019 Feb; 5(1):4. PubMed ID: 30778790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Accuracy of impressions of multiple implants in the edentulous arch: a systematic review.
    Baig MR
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2014; 29(4):869-80. PubMed ID: 25032767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. The effect of impression volume and double-arch trays on the registration of maximum intercuspation.
    Hahn SM; Millstein PL; Kinnunen TH; Wright RF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Dec; 102(6):362-7. PubMed ID: 19961994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Effect of wash bulk on the accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impressions.
    Nissan J; Gross M; Shifman A; Assif D
    J Oral Rehabil; 2002 Apr; 29(4):357-61. PubMed ID: 11966969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Comparison of Different Impression Techniques When Using the All-on-Four Implant Treatment Protocol.
    Siadat H; Alikhasi M; Beyabanaki E; Rahimian S
    Int J Prosthodont; 2016; 29(3):265-70. PubMed ID: 27148987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses.
    Vigolo P; Fonzi F; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2004 Nov; 92(5):470-6. PubMed ID: 15523336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. 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]  

  • 76. The effect of implant connection length on the dimensional impression accuracy of inclined implants.
    Ehsani S; Siadat H; Alikhasi M
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(6):e315-20. PubMed ID: 24278936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions.
    Wee AG
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Mar; 83(3):323-31. PubMed ID: 10709042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts.
    Buda M; Bratos M; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):913-918. PubMed ID: 29961627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Can transfer type and implant angulation affect impression accuracy? A 3D in vitro evaluation.
    Farronato D; Pasini PM; Campana V; Lops D; Azzi L; Manfredini M
    Odontology; 2021 Oct; 109(4):884-894. PubMed ID: 34075492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Effect of impression tray design and impression technique upon the accuracy of stone casts produced from a putty-wash polyvinyl siloxane impression material.
    Saunders WP; Sharkey SW; Smith GM; Taylor WG
    J Dent; 1991 Oct; 19(5):283-9. PubMed ID: 1806594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.