647 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29602345)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Students' perspectives on the use of digital versus conventional dental impression techniques in orthodontics.
Schott TC; Arsalan R; Weimer K
BMC Med Educ; 2019 Mar; 19(1):81. PubMed ID: 30866910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients.
Burhardt L; Livas C; Kerdijk W; van der Meer WJ; Ren Y
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Aug; 150(2):261-7. PubMed ID: 27476358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Computerized Casts for Orthodontic Purpose Using Powder-Free Intraoral Scanners: Accuracy, Execution Time, and Patient Feedback.
Sfondrini MF; Gandini P; Malfatto M; Di Corato F; Trovati F; Scribante A
Biomed Res Int; 2018; 2018():4103232. PubMed ID: 29850512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients' preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material.
Sakornwimon N; Leevailoj C
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):386-391. PubMed ID: 28222872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions.
Wiranto MG; Engelbrecht WP; Tutein Nolthenius HE; van der Meer WJ; Ren Y
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Jan; 143(1):140-7. PubMed ID: 23273370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Effect of Impression Technique and Operator Experience on Impression Time and Operator-Reported Outcomes.
Yilmaz H; Eglenen MN; Cakmak G; Yilmaz B
J Prosthodont; 2021 Oct; 30(8):676-683. PubMed ID: 33533132
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [To bite or to scan? Dental impressions with alginate, PVS or -intra-oral scanning; processing time and patient comfort. A pilotstudy].
Darroudi M; Ariens ZP; Zinsmeister VZ; Breuning KH
Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 2017 Feb; 124(2):91-95. PubMed ID: 28186514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: A comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing.
Wesemann C; Muallah J; Mah J; Bumann A
Quintessence Int; 2017; 48(1):41-50. PubMed ID: 27834416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Intraoral 3D Scanning or Dental Impressions for the Assessment of Dental Arch Relationships in Cleft Care: Which is Superior?
Chalmers EV; McIntyre GT; Wang W; Gillgrass T; Martin CB; Mossey PA
Cleft Palate Craniofac J; 2016 Sep; 53(5):568-77. PubMed ID: 26623548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Digitization of dental alginate impression: Three-dimensional evaluation of point cloud.
Kim SR; Lee WS; Kim WC; Kim HY; Kim JH
Dent Mater J; 2015; 34(6):835-40. PubMed ID: 26632232
[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 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]
18. A comparison of patient experience, chair-side time, accuracy of dental arch measurements and costs of acquisition of dental models.
Glisic O; Hoejbjerre L; Sonnesen L
Angle Orthod; 2019 Nov; 89(6):868-875. PubMed ID: 31259615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions.
Sailer I; Mühlemann S; Fehmer V; Hämmerle CHF; Benic GI
J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Jan; 121(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 30017152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
