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 *

649 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29602345)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants.
    Wismeijer D; Mans R; van Genuchten M; Reijers HA
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2014 Oct; 25(10):1113-8. PubMed ID: 23941118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence.
    Goracci C; Franchi L; Vichi A; Ferrari M
    Eur J Orthod; 2016 Aug; 38(4):422-8. PubMed ID: 26487391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Dimensional accuracy of jaw scans performed on alginate impressions or stone models: A practice-oriented study.
    Vogel AB; Kilic F; Schmidt F; Rübel S; Lapatki BG
    J Orofac Orthop; 2015 Jul; 76(4):351-65. PubMed ID: 26123733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Accuracy of Digital Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.
    Giachetti L; Sarti C; Cinelli F; Russo DS
    Int J Prosthodont; 2020; 33(2):192-201. PubMed ID: 32069344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch impressions between three different intraoral scanners and conventional impressions: A prospective in vivo study.
    Bhatia N; Muthuswamy Pandian S
    J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects; 2024; 18(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 38881640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. [Precision of digital impressions with TRIOS under simulated intraoral impression taking conditions].
    Yang X; Sun YF; Tian L; Si WJ; Feng HL; Liu YH
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2015 Feb; 47(1):85-9. PubMed ID: 25686335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review.
    Aragón ML; Pontes LF; Bichara LM; Flores-Mir C; Normando D
    Eur J Orthod; 2016 Aug; 38(4):429-34. PubMed ID: 27266879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Computer-Aided Design and Manufacture of Intraoral Splints: A Potential Role in Cleft Care.
    Leberfinger AN; Jones CM; Mackay DR; Samson TD; Henry CR; Ravnic DJ
    J Surg Res; 2021 May; 261():173-178. PubMed ID: 33444946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Is It Cost Effective to Add an Intraoral Scanner to an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Practice?
    Resnick CM; Doyle M; Calabrese CE; Sanchez K; Padwa BL
    J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2019 Aug; 77(8):1687-1694. PubMed ID: 30991020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Accuracy of 3-dimensional printed dental models reconstructed from digital intraoral impressions.
    Brown GB; Currier GF; Kadioglu O; Kierl JP
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Nov; 154(5):733-739. PubMed ID: 30384944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 33.