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 *

679 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29615324)

  • 1. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows.
    Sim JY; Jang Y; Kim WC; Kim HY; Lee DH; Kim JH
    J Prosthodont Res; 2019 Jan; 63(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 29615324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.
    Carbajal Mejía JB; Wakabayashi K; Nakamura T; Yatani H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):392-399. PubMed ID: 28222873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible.
    Hayama H; Fueki K; Wadachi J; Wakabayashi N
    J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Jul; 62(3):347-352. PubMed ID: 29502933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparative study assessing the precision and trueness of digital and printed casts produced from several intraoral and extraoral scanners in full arch and short span (3-unit FPD) scanning: An in vitro study.
    Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Jun; 32(5):423-430. PubMed ID: 35852379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Accuracy of 3D Printed Models Created by Two Technologies of Printers with Different Designs of Model Base.
    Rungrojwittayakul O; Kan JY; Shiozaki K; Swamidass RS; Goodacre BJ; Goodacre CJ; Lozada JL
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Feb; 29(2):124-128. PubMed ID: 31498957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Impact of internal design on the accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed casts fabricated by stereolithography and digital light processing technology.
    Chen Y; Li H; Zhai Z; Nakano T; Ishigaki S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Sep; 130(3):381.e1-381.e7. PubMed ID: 37482533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans based on confocal microscopy versus optical triangulation: A comparative in vitro study.
    Waldecker M; Rues S; Rammelsberg P; Bömicke W
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Sep; 126(3):414-420. PubMed ID: 32950254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Accuracy of 3-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated on 3D-printed casts.
    Jang Y; Sim JY; Park JK; Kim WC; Kim HY; Kim JH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):135-142. PubMed ID: 31027960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Accuracy of three digital scanning methods for complete-arch tooth preparation: An in vitro comparison.
    Gao H; Liu X; Liu M; Yang X; Tan J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1001-1008. PubMed ID: 33736864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Accuracy of Dental Replica Models Using Photopolymer Materials in Additive Manufacturing: In Vitro Three-Dimensional Evaluation.
    Jin SJ; Kim DY; Kim JH; Kim WC
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):e557-e562. PubMed ID: 29968424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners.
    Treesh JC; Liacouras PC; Taft RM; Brooks DI; Raiciulescu S; Ellert DO; Grant GT; Ye L
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):382-388. PubMed ID: 29724554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Impact of different complete coverage onlay preparation designs and the intraoral scanner on the accuracy of digital scans.
    de Andrade GS; Luz JN; Tribst JPM; Chun EP; Bressane A; Borges ALS; Saavedra GSFA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jun; 131(6):1168-1177. PubMed ID: 35717209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of six intraoral scanners for scanning complete-arch and 4-unit fixed partial dentures: An in vitro study.
    Diker B; Tak Ö
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Aug; 128(2):187-194. PubMed ID: 33558056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Three-Dimensional Evaluation on Accuracy of Conventional and Milled Gypsum Models and 3D Printed Photopolymer Models.
    Choi JW; Ahn JJ; Son K; Huh JB
    Materials (Basel); 2019 Oct; 12(21):. PubMed ID: 31731447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 34.