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.
221 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29990644)
1. Conformity, reliability and validity of digital dental models created by clinical intraoral scanning and extraoral plaster model digitization workflows. Kirschneck C; Kamuf B; Putsch C; Chhatwani S; Bizhang M; Danesh G Comput Biol Med; 2018 Sep; 100():114-122. PubMed ID: 29990644 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Impact of orthodontic brackets on intraoral and extraoral scans. Amaral Vargas EO; Otero Amaral Vargas D; da Silva Coqueiro R; Franzotti Sant'anna E; Melo Pithon M Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2022 Aug; 162(2):208-213. PubMed ID: 35339321 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Digital Models Formulated From Direct Intra-oral Scanning of Dental Arches in Comparison With Extra-oral Scanning of Poured Dental Models in Terms of Dimensional Accuracy and Reliability. Jaber ST; Hajeer MY; Alkhouli KW; Al-Shamak RM; Darwich KMA; Aljabban O; Alam MK; Kara-Boulad JM Cureus; 2024 Feb; 16(2):e54869. PubMed ID: 38405645 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Accuracy of intraoral scans in the mixed dentition: a prospective non-randomized comparative clinical trial. Liczmanski K; Stamm T; Sauerland C; Blanck-Lubarsch M Head Face Med; 2020 May; 16(1):11. PubMed ID: 32430023 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. The precision of two alternative indirect workflows for digital model production: an illusion or a possibility? Elkersh NM; Fahmy RA; Zayet MK; Gaweesh YS; Hassan MG Clin Oral Investig; 2023 Jul; 27(7):3787-3797. PubMed ID: 37046002 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo. Zimmermann M; Koller C; Rumetsch M; Ender A; Mehl A J Orofac Orthop; 2017 Nov; 78(6):466-471. PubMed ID: 28733810 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Accuracy of stereolithographically printed digital models compared to plaster models. Camardella LT; Vilella OV; van Hezel MM; Breuning KH J Orofac Orthop; 2017 Sep; 78(5):394-402. PubMed ID: 28361165 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Digital impressions in dentistry-accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop scanners. Runkel C; Güth JF; Erdelt K; Keul C Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Mar; 24(3):1249-1257. PubMed ID: 31302771 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner. Camardella LT; Breuning H; de Vasconcellos Vilella O J Orofac Orthop; 2017 May; 78(3):211-220. PubMed ID: 28074260 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Reliability and intra-examiner agreement of orthodontic model analysis with a digital caliper on plaster and printed dental models. Koretsi V; Kirschbauer C; Proff P; Kirschneck C Clin Oral Investig; 2019 Aug; 23(8):3387-3396. PubMed ID: 30539294 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Luthardt RG; Loos R; Quaas S Int J Comput Dent; 2005 Oct; 8(4):283-94. PubMed ID: 16689029 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]