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 *

207 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29210502)

  • 1. Three-Dimensional Static Articulation Accuracy of Virtual Models-Part II: Effect of Model Scanner-CAD Systems and Articulation Method.
    Yee SHX; Esguerra RJ; Chew AAQ; Wong KM; Tan KBC
    J Prosthodont; 2018 Feb; 27(2):137-144. PubMed ID: 29210502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Three-Dimensional Static Articulation Accuracy of Virtual Models - Part I: System Trueness and Precision.
    Yee SHX; Esguerra RJ; Chew AAQ; Wong KM; Tan KBC
    J Prosthodont; 2018 Feb; 27(2):129-136. PubMed ID: 29235202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Static Interocclusal Registration by Three Intraoral Scanner Systems.
    Wong KY; Esguerra RJ; Chia VAP; Tan YH; Tan KBC
    J Prosthodont; 2018 Feb; 27(2):120-128. PubMed ID: 29160904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Three-dimensional analysis of the interchangeability of a semiadjustable articulator system in service over time.
    Lee VC; Tan MY; Yee SHX; Wong KY; Lee FKF; Tan KBC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 May; ():. PubMed ID: 37244795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of 5 types of interocclusal recording materials on the accuracy of articulation of digital models.
    Sweeney S; Smith DK; Messersmith M
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Aug; 148(2):245-52. PubMed ID: 26232833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparing maximum intercuspal contacts of virtual dental patients and mounted dental casts.
    Delong R; Ko CC; Anderson GC; Hodges JS; Douglas WH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Dec; 88(6):622-30. PubMed ID: 12488856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Simulation of dental collisions and occlusal dynamics in the virtual environment.
    Stavness IK; Hannam AG; Tobias DL; Zhang X
    J Oral Rehabil; 2016 Apr; 43(4):269-78. PubMed ID: 26685912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Three-dimensional analysis of the accuracy of conventional and completely digital interocclusal registration methods.
    Ries JM; Grünler C; Wichmann M; Matta RE
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):994-1000. PubMed ID: 33888327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The accuracy of virtual interocclusal registration during intraoral scanning.
    Edher F; Hannam AG; Tobias DL; Wyatt CCL
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):904-912. PubMed ID: 29961618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Dimensional accuracy of optical bite registration in single and multiple unit restorations.
    Iwaki Y; Wakabayashi N; Igarashi Y
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(3):309-15. PubMed ID: 23092147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy comparison of bilateral versus complete arch interocclusal registration scans for virtual articulation.
    Lee JD; Luu D; Yoon TW; Lee SJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Feb; ():. PubMed ID: 36813588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses.
    Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Accuracy and precision of occlusal contacts of stereolithographic casts mounted by digital interocclusal registrations.
    Krahenbuhl JT; Cho SH; Irelan J; Bansal NK
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Aug; 116(2):231-6. PubMed ID: 27068319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of a conventional and virtual occlusal record.
    Solaberrieta E; Otegi JR; Goicoechea N; Brizuela A; Pradies G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Jul; 114(1):92-7. PubMed ID: 25858220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Does the available interocclusal space influence the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship captured with an intraoral scanner?
    Revilla-León M; Gómez-Polo M; Zeitler JM; Barmak AB; Kois JC; Pérez-Barquero JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Oct; ():. PubMed ID: 36349566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparative evaluation of dimensional stability of three types of interocclusal recording materials-an in-vitro multi-centre study.
    Tejo SK; Kumar AG; Kattimani VS; Desai PD; Nalla S; Chaitanya K K
    Head Face Med; 2012 Oct; 8():27. PubMed ID: 23039395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Accuracy of contacts calculated from 3D images of occlusal surfaces.
    DeLong R; Knorr S; Anderson GC; Hodges J; Pintado MR
    J Dent; 2007 Jun; 35(6):528-34. PubMed ID: 17418474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual edentulous casts created by laboratory impression scan protocols.
    Peng L; Chen L; Harris BT; Bhandari B; Morton D; Lin WS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):389-395. PubMed ID: 29703675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Accuracy of Dynamic Virtual Articulation: Trueness and Precision.
    Hsu MR; Driscoll CF; Romberg E; Masri R
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Apr; 28(4):436-443. PubMed ID: 30737975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.