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 *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30140392)

  • 1. Accuracy of new implant impression technique using dual arch tray and bite impression coping.
    Lee SE; Yang SE; Lee CW; Lee WS; Lee SY
    J Adv Prosthodont; 2018 Aug; 10(4):265-270. PubMed ID: 30140392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression.
    Kim KR; Seo KY; Kim S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Dec; 122(6):543-549. PubMed ID: 30955939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accuracy of Impression Techniques for Dental Implants Placed in Five Different Orientations.
    Kim HS; Lee JH; Lee SY
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2022; 37(5):997-1002. PubMed ID: 36170315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The Accuracy of Open-Tray vs. Snap on Impression Techniques in A 6-Implant Model: An In Vitro 3D Study.
    Arieli A; Adawi M; Masri M; Weinberg E; Beitlitum I; Pilo R; Levartovsky S
    Materials (Basel); 2022 Mar; 15(6):. PubMed ID: 35329555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Accuracy of impression methods through the comparison of 3D deviation between implant fixtures.
    Lee Y; Jung Y; Choi Y; Kim Y; Kim S; Hong SJ; Kim H; Pae A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2024 Mar; 27(1):9-18. PubMed ID: 36695628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition.
    Rhee YK; Huh YH; Cho LR; Park CJ
    J Adv Prosthodont; 2015 Dec; 7(6):460-7. PubMed ID: 26816576
    [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 complete-arch implant impression made with occlusal registration material.
    Papazoglou E; Wee AG; Carr AB; Urban I; Margaritis V
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):143-148. PubMed ID: 31079882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of different impression materials and techniques on the dimensional accuracy of implant definitive casts.
    Ebadian B; Rismanchian M; Dastgheib B; Bajoghli F
    Dent Res J (Isfahan); 2015; 12(2):136-43. PubMed ID: 25878678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of conventional impressions versus digital scans for the all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch: An in vitro study.
    Marshaha NJ; Azhari AA; Assery MK; Ahmed WM
    J Prosthodont; 2024 Feb; 33(2):171-179. PubMed ID: 36811911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A clinical pilot study of the dimensional accuracy of double-arch and complete-arch impressions.
    Cox JR; Brandt RL; Hughes HJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 May; 87(5):510-5. PubMed ID: 12070514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Implant impression accuracy of parallel and non-parallel implants: a comparative in-vitro analysis of open and closed tray techniques.
    Osman MS; Ziada HM; Abubakr NH; Suliman AM
    Int J Implant Dent; 2019 Feb; 5(1):4. PubMed ID: 30778790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions.
    Ceyhan JA; Johnson GH; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Aug; 90(2):143-9. PubMed ID: 12886207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques.
    Alsharbaty MHM; Alikhasi M; Zarrati S; Shamshiri AR
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Apr; 28(4):e902-e908. PubMed ID: 29423969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of multi-implant impressions using 3D-printing custom trays and splinting versus conventional techniques for complete arches.
    Liu Y; Di P; Zhao Y; Hao Q; Tian J; Cui H
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(4):1007–1014. PubMed ID: 31107937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The accuracy of dual-arch impressions: a pilot study.
    Larson TD; Nielsen MA; Brackett WW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Jun; 87(6):625-7. PubMed ID: 12131884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.