170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30024348)
1. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral scanners on the accuracy of digital model articulation.
Porter JL; Carrico CK; Lindauer SJ; Tüfekçi E
J Orthod; 2018 Dec; 45(4):275-282. PubMed ID: 30024348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Accuracy of 3D Printed and Digital Casts Produced from Intraoral and Extraoral Scanners with Different Scanning Technologies: In Vitro Study.
Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
J Prosthodont; 2022 Jul; 31(6):521-528. PubMed ID: 34661950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A Novel Methodology to Validate the Accuracy of Extraoral Dental Scanners and Digital Articulation Systems.
Ellakwa A; Elnajar S; Littlefair D; Sara G
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2018 May; 26(2):75-84. PubMed ID: 29722937
[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. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained from Intraoral and Extraoral Dental Scanners with Different CAD/CAM Scanning Technologies: An In Vitro Study.
Ellakany P; Tantawi ME; Mahrous AA; Al-Harbi F
J Prosthodont; 2022 Apr; 31(4):314-319. PubMed ID: 34085355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Analysis of intra-arch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography.
White AJ; Fallis DW; Vandewalle KS
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Apr; 137(4):456.e1-9; discussion 456-7. PubMed ID: 20362900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Three-Dimensional Static Articulation Accuracy of Virtual Models-Part II: Effect of Model Scanner-CAD Systems and Articulation Method.
Yee SHX; Esguerra RJ; Chew AAQ; Wong KM; Tan KBC
J Prosthodont; 2018 Feb; 27(2):137-144. PubMed ID: 29210502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Trueness evaluation of three intraoral scanners for the recording of maximal intercuspal position.
Wang S; Zhou Z; Yuan Q; Yue L; Yang S
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2024 Apr; 42(2):227-233. PubMed ID: 38597082
[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. Scanning accuracy of nondental structured light extraoral scanners compared with that of a dental-specific scanner.
Piedra-Cascón W; Methani MM; Quesada-Olmo N; Jiménez-Martínez MJ; Revilla-León M
J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Jul; 126(1):110-114. PubMed ID: 32665118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data.
Patzelt SB; Bishti S; Stampf S; Att W
J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Nov; 145(11):1133-40. PubMed ID: 25359645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral and extraoral scanners: an in vitro study using a new method of evaluation.
Muallah J; Wesemann C; Nowak R; Robben J; Mah J; Pospiech P; Bumann A
Int J Comput Dent; 2017; 20(2):151-164. PubMed ID: 28630956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of 5 types of interocclusal recording materials on the accuracy of articulation of digital models.
Sweeney S; Smith DK; Messersmith M
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Aug; 148(2):245-52. PubMed ID: 26232833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization.
Güth JF; Runkel C; Beuer F; Stimmelmayr M; Edelhoff D; Keul C
Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Jun; 21(5):1445-1455. PubMed ID: 27406138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Accuracy of virtual interocclusal records for partially edentulous patients.
Ren S; Morton D; Lin WS
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jun; 123(6):860-865. PubMed ID: 31672422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of 3-dimensional curvilinear measurements on digital models with intraoral scanners.
Mack S; Bonilla T; English JD; Cozad B; Akyalcin S
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2017 Sep; 152(3):420-425. PubMed ID: 28863923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners.
Lee JJ; Jeong ID; Park JY; Jeon JH; Kim JH; Kim WC
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Feb; 117(2):253-259. PubMed ID: 27666500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
