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 *

486 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30060540)

  • 1. Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions-An In Vitro Study.
    Ribeiro P; Herrero-Climent M; Díaz-Castro C; Ríos-Santos JV; Padrós R; Mur JG; Falcão C
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2018 Jul; 15(8):. PubMed ID: 30060540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.
    Amin S; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Nov; 28(11):1360-1367. PubMed ID: 28039903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.
    Papaspyridakos P; Gallucci GO; Chen CJ; Hanssen S; Naert I; Vandenberghe B
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Apr; 27(4):465-72. PubMed ID: 25682892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study.
    Alshawaf B; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):835-842. PubMed ID: 29926977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.
    Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions.
    Albayrak B; Sukotjo C; Wee AG; Korkmaz İH; Bayındır F
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Feb; 30(2):163-170. PubMed ID: 32935894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study.
    Lin WS; Harris BT; Elathamna EN; Abdel-Azim T; Morton D
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(1):102-9. PubMed ID: 25615919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings.
    Conejo J; Yoo TH; Atria PJ; Fraiman H; Blatz MB
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Mar; 131(3):475.e1-475.e7. PubMed ID: 38182453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra-oral scanning devices.
    Palantza E; Sykaras N; Zoidis P; Kourtis S
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Aug; 36(8):1179-1198. PubMed ID: 38534043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluating the Effect of Different Impression Techniques and Splinting Methods on the Dimensional Accuracy of Multiple Implant Impressions: An in vitro Study.
    Saini HS; Jain S; Kumar S; Aggarwal R; Choudhary S; Reddy NK
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Aug; 19(8):1005-1012. PubMed ID: 30150505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Accuracy of impressions and casts using different implant impression techniques in a multi-implant system with an internal hex connection.
    Wenz HJ; Hertrampf K
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(1):39-47. PubMed ID: 18416411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Verification jig for implant-supported prostheses: A comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials.
    De La Cruz JE; Funkenbusch PD; Ercoli C; Moss ME; Graser GN; Tallents RH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Sep; 88(3):329-36. PubMed ID: 12426505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy of Three Different Impression Materials Using Three Different Techniques for Implant Impressions: An
    Khan SA; Singh S; Neyaz N; Jaiswal MM; Tanwar AS; Singh A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2021 Feb; 22(2):172-178. PubMed ID: 34257178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.
    Marghalani A; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Kudara Y; El Rafie K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579. PubMed ID: 28927923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of the accuracy of Biomet 3i Encode Robocast Technology and conventional implant impression techniques.
    Howell KJ; McGlumphy EA; Drago C; Knapik G
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(1):228-40. PubMed ID: 23377070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of accuracy of hexed and nonhexed pickup impression copings in a multiple variable impression setup for recording multiple straight and angulated implant positions: An
    Kaur T; Singla S; Kumar L
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2023; 23(1):21-29. PubMed ID: 36588371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure.
    Menini M; Setti P; Pera F; Pera P; Pesce P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Apr; 22(3):1253-1262. PubMed ID: 28965251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions.
    Vigolo P; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):186-92. PubMed ID: 12616240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Prosthesis accuracy of fit on 3D-printed casts versus stone casts: A comparative study in the anterior maxilla.
    Abdeen L; Chen YW; Kostagianni A; Finkelman M; Papathanasiou A; Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2022 Dec; 34(8):1238-1246. PubMed ID: 36415927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study.
    Alkindi S; Hamdoon Z; Aziz AM
    J Dent; 2024 Jul; 146():105045. PubMed ID: 38714241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 25.