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 *

323 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29430612)

  • 1. Comparison of two intraoral scanners based on three-dimensional surface analysis.
    Lee KM
    Prog Orthod; 2018 Feb; 19(1):6. PubMed ID: 29430612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.
    Flügge TV; Schlager S; Nelson K; Nahles S; Metzger MC
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Sep; 144(3):471-8. PubMed ID: 23992820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction.
    Burzynski JA; Firestone AR; Beck FM; Fields HW; Deguchi T
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Apr; 153(4):534-541. PubMed ID: 29602345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Accuracy of three intraoral scans for primary impressions of edentulous jaws].
    Cao Y; Chen JK; Deng KH; Wang Y; Sun YC; Zhao YJ
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Feb; 52(1):129-137. PubMed ID: 32071476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence.
    Diker B; Tak Ö
    Int J Prosthodont; 2021; 34(1):101-108. PubMed ID: 33570525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques.
    Malik J; Rodriguez J; Weisbloom M; Petridis H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(2):107-113. PubMed ID: 29518805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.
    Renne W; Ludlow M; Fryml J; Schurch Z; Mennito A; Kessler R; Lauer A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Jul; 118(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 28024822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data.
    Patzelt SB; Bishti S; Stampf S; Att W
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Nov; 145(11):1133-40. PubMed ID: 25359645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method.
    Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Nyström I; Rydén J; Thor A
    J Dent; 2018 Feb; 69():110-118. PubMed ID: 29246490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training in digital impression taking.
    Park HR; Park JM; Chun YS; Lee KN; Kim M
    BMC Oral Health; 2015 Nov; 15(1):151. PubMed ID: 26613798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison.
    Keul C; Güth JF
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Feb; 24(2):735-745. PubMed ID: 31134345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Intraoral Scanning Systems: Need for Maintenance.
    Rehmann P; Sichwardt V; Wöstmann B
    Int J Prosthodont; 2017; 30(1):27-29. PubMed ID: 28085974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review.
    Kihara H; Hatakeyama W; Komine F; Takafuji K; Takahashi T; Yokota J; Oriso K; Kondo H
    J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Apr; 64(2):109-113. PubMed ID: 31474576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner.
    Müller P; Ender A; Joda T; Katsoulis J
    Quintessence Int; 2016 Apr; 47(4):343-9. PubMed ID: 26824085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method.
    Nagy Z; Simon B; Mennito A; Evans Z; Renne W; Vág J
    BMC Oral Health; 2020 Apr; 20(1):97. PubMed ID: 32264943
    [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. A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients.
    Kuhr F; Schmidt A; Rehmann P; Wöstmann B
    J Dent; 2016 Dec; 55():68-74. PubMed ID: 27717754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.