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 *

306 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29476599)

  • 1. Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems.
    Mennito AS; Evans ZP; Lauer AW; Patel RB; Ludlow ME; Renne WG
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2018 Mar; 30(2):113-118. PubMed ID: 29476599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners.
    Latham J; Ludlow M; Mennito A; Kelly A; Evans Z; Renne W
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):85-95. PubMed ID: 30982616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Comparative analysis of 3D data accuracy of single tooth and full dental arch captured by different intraoral and laboratory digital impression systems].
    Ryakhovskiy AN; Kostyukova VV
    Stomatologiia (Mosk); 2016; 95(4):65-70. PubMed ID: 27636766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner.
    Mennito AS; Evans ZP; Nash J; Bocklet C; Lauer Kelly A; Bacro T; Cayouette M; Ludlow M; Renne WG
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2019 Jul; 31(4):369-377. PubMed ID: 31058428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans.
    Resende CCD; Barbosa TAQ; Moura GF; Tavares LDN; Rizzante FAP; George FM; Neves FDD; Mendonça G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Feb; 125(2):294-299. PubMed ID: 32115221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions.
    Albayrak B; Sukotjo C; Wee AG; Korkmaz İH; Bayındır F
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Feb; 30(2):163-170. PubMed ID: 32935894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.
    Ender A; Zimmermann M; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2019; 22(1):11-19. PubMed ID: 30848250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: an in vitro study.
    Passos L; Meiga S; Brigagão V; Street A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2019; 22(4):307-319. PubMed ID: 31840139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of the accuracy of 2 digital intraoral scanners: A 3D analysis study.
    Alzahrani SJ; El-Hammali H; Morgano SM; Elkassaby H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Dec; 126(6):787-792. PubMed ID: 33172647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners.
    Di Fiore A; Meneghello R; Graiff L; Savio G; Vigolo P; Monaco C; Stellini E
    J Prosthodont Res; 2019 Oct; 63(4):396-403. PubMed ID: 31072730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance.
    Atieh MA; Ritter AV; Ko CC; Duqum I
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):400-405. PubMed ID: 28222869
    [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. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.
    Ender A; Zimmermann M; Attin T; Mehl A
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Sep; 20(7):1495-504. PubMed ID: 26547869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Local accuracy of actual intraoral scanning systems for single-tooth preparations in vitro.
    Zimmermann M; Ender A; Mehl A
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2020 Feb; 151(2):127-135. PubMed ID: 31883705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2011; 14(1):11-21. PubMed ID: 21657122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of intraoral digital impressions for obtaining gingival contour in the esthetic zone: accuracy outcomes.
    Wei D; Di P; Tian J; Zhao Y; Lin Y
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Apr; 24(4):1401-1410. PubMed ID: 31754870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.