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 *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29722937)

  • 21. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression.
    Su TS; Sun J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Sep; 116(3):362-7. PubMed ID: 27061628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners.
    Abdel-Azim T; Rogers K; Elathamna E; Zandinejad A; Metz M; Morton D
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):554-9. PubMed ID: 26100929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Bias Evaluation of the Accuracy of Two Extraoral Scanners and an Intraoral Scanner Based on ADA Standards.
    Cui N; Wang J; Hou X; Sun S; Huang Q; Lim HK; Cai H; Jia Q; Lee ES; Jiang HB
    Scanning; 2021; 2021():5535403. PubMed ID: 34221213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations.
    Rudolph H; Salmen H; Moldan M; Kuhn K; Sichwardt V; Wöstmann B; Luthardt RG
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2016; 24(1):85-94. PubMed ID: 27008261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies.
    González de Villaumbrosia P; Martínez-Rus F; García-Orejas A; Salido MP; Pradíes G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Oct; 116(4):543-550.e1. PubMed ID: 27112413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Digital dentistry: innovation for restorative treatment.
    Fasbinder DJ
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2010; 31 Spec No 4():2-11; quiz 12. PubMed ID: 21049823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners.
    Bohner LOL; De Luca Canto G; Marció BS; Laganá DC; Sesma N; Tortamano Neto P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Nov; 118(5):617-623. PubMed ID: 28385434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems.
    Shembesh M; Ali A; Finkelman M; Weber HP; Zandparsa R
    J Prosthodont; 2017 Oct; 26(7):581-586. PubMed ID: 26855068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effect of dental technician disparities on the 3-dimensional accuracy of definitive casts.
    Emir F; Piskin B; Sipahi C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Mar; 117(3):410-418. PubMed ID: 27677213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Intraoral Scanning Systems: Need for Maintenance.
    Rehmann P; Sichwardt V; Wöstmann B
    Int J Prosthodont; 2017; 30(1):27-29. PubMed ID: 28085974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth.
    Giménez B; Özcan M; Martínez-Rus F; Pradíes G
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2015 Jan; 17 Suppl 1():e54-64. PubMed ID: 23879869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis.
    Nedelcu RG; Persson AS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Dec; 112(6):1461-71. PubMed ID: 25134995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods.
    Ng J; Ruse D; Wyatt C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Sep; 112(3):555-60. PubMed ID: 24630399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Three-Dimensional Static Articulation Accuracy of Virtual Models - Part I: System Trueness and Precision.
    Yee SHX; Esguerra RJ; Chew AAQ; Wong KM; Tan KBC
    J Prosthodont; 2018 Feb; 27(2):129-136. PubMed ID: 29235202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.