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 *

379 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30017152)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference.
    Schepke U; Meijer HJ; Kerdijk W; Cune MS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Sep; 114(3):403-6.e1. PubMed ID: 26047800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    Quintessence Int; 2015 Jan; 46(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 25019118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review.
    Joda T; Zarone F; Ferrari M
    BMC Oral Health; 2017 Sep; 17(1):124. PubMed ID: 28927393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Veneered anatomically designed zirconia FDPs resulting from digital intraoral scans: Preliminary results of a prospective clinical study.
    Selz CF; Bogler J; Vach K; Strub JR; Guess PC
    J Dent; 2015 Dec; 43(12):1428-35. PubMed ID: 26523348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Time-efficiency and cost-analysis comparing three digital workflows for treatment with monolithic zirconia implant fixed dental prostheses: A double-blinded RCT.
    Joda T; Gintaute A; Brägger U; Ferrari M; Weber K; Zitzmann NU
    J Dent; 2021 Oct; 113():103779. PubMed ID: 34391875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. The fit of crowns produced using digital impression systems.
    Vennerstrom M; Fakhary M; Von Steyern PV
    Swed Dent J; 2014; 38(3):101-10. PubMed ID: 25796804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner.
    An S; Kim S; Choi H; Lee JH; Moon HS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Nov; 112(5):1171-5. PubMed ID: 24951386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions.
    Zarauz C; Valverde A; Martinez-Rus F; Hassan B; Pradies G
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 May; 20(4):799-806. PubMed ID: 26362778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Bandiaky ON; Le Bars P; Gaudin A; Hardouin JB; Cheraud-Carpentier M; Mbodj EB; Soueidan A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Jan; 127(1):71-79. PubMed ID: 33143901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods.
    Cho SH; Schaefer O; Thompson GA; Guentsch A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Apr; 113(4):310-5. PubMed ID: 25682531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Marginal adaptation of zirconia complete-coverage fixed dental restorations made from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Tabesh M; Nejatidanesh F; Savabi G; Davoudi A; Savabi O; Mirmohammadi H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Apr; 125(4):603-610. PubMed ID: 32284188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Fit of monolithic multilayer zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated by conventional versus digital impression: a clinical and laboratory investigations.
    Morsy N; El Kateb M; Azer A; Fathalla S
    Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Sep; 25(9):5363-5373. PubMed ID: 33619632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.
    Anadioti E; Aquilino SA; Gratton DG; Holloway JA; Denry I; Thomas GW; Qian F
    J Prosthodont; 2014 Dec; 23(8):610-7. PubMed ID: 24995593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study.
    Patzelt SB; Lamprinos C; Stampf S; Att W
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Jun; 145(6):542-51. PubMed ID: 24878708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.