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 *

573 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29669951)

  • 1. Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning.
    Tomita Y; Uechi J; Konno M; Sasamoto S; Iijima M; Mizoguchi I
    Dent Mater J; 2018 Jul; 37(4):628-633. PubMed ID: 29669951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine.
    Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro.
    Güth JF; Edelhoff D; Schweiger J; Keul C
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Sep; 20(7):1487-94. PubMed ID: 26454734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Three-dimensional differences between intraoral scans and conventional impressions of edentulous jaws: A clinical study.
    Lo Russo L; Caradonna G; Troiano G; Salamini A; Guida L; Ciavarella D
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Feb; 123(2):264-268. PubMed ID: 31153614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Accuracy of digital auricular impression using intraoral scanner versus conventional impression technique for ear rehabilitation: A controlled clinical trial.
    Dohiem MM; Emam NS; Abdallah MF; Abdelaziz MS
    J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg; 2022 Nov; 75(11):4254-4263. PubMed ID: 36117136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Validity of Intraoral Scans Compared with Plaster Models: An In-Vivo Comparison of Dental Measurements and 3D Surface Analysis.
    Zhang F; Suh KJ; Lee KM
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0157713. PubMed ID: 27304976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of digital model accuracy and time-dependent deformation of alginate impressions.
    Cesur MG; Omurlu IK; Ozer T
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2017 Sep; 20(9):1175-1181. PubMed ID: 29072243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Accuracy of a chairside intraoral scanner compared with a laboratory scanner for the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro 3-dimensional comparative analysis.
    Zarone F; Ruggiero G; Ferrari M; Mangano F; Joda T; Sorrentino R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Dec; 124(6):761.e1-761.e7. PubMed ID: 33289647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques.
    Alsharbaty MHM; Alikhasi M; Zarrati S; Shamshiri AR
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Apr; 28(4):e902-e908. PubMed ID: 29423969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression.
    Kim KR; Seo KY; Kim S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Dec; 122(6):543-549. PubMed ID: 30955939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Dimensional accuracy of microcomputed tomography-scanned half-arch impressions.
    Kerr M; Park N; Leeson D; Nikolskiy S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 May; 121(5):797-802. PubMed ID: 30617030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 29.