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 *

172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30454854)

  • 1. Impression of Subgingival Dental Preparation Can Be Taken with Ultrasound.
    Marotti J; Broeckmann J; Chuembou Pekam F; Praça L; Radermacher K; Wolfart S
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2019 Feb; 45(2):558-567. PubMed ID: 30454854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of single crowns fabricated from ultrasound digital impressions.
    Praça L; Pekam FC; Rego RO; Radermacher K; Wolfart S; Marotti J
    Dent Mater; 2018 Nov; 34(11):e280-e288. PubMed ID: 30268677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. High-frequency ultrasound as an option for scanning of prepared teeth: an in vitro study.
    Chuembou Pekam F; Marotti J; Wolfart S; Tinschert J; Radermacher K; Heger S
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2015 Jan; 41(1):309-16. PubMed ID: 25444694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study.
    Vandeweghe S; Vervack V; Dierens M; De Bruyn H
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Jun; 28(6):648-653. PubMed ID: 27150731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Comparative analysis of 3D data visibility of the prepared tooth finishing line on a synthetic jaw model, captured by international scanners in a laboratory conditions].
    Ryakhovskiy AN; Kostyukova VV
    Stomatologiia (Mosk); 2016; 95(5):39-46. PubMed ID: 27876722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of Intra-Oral Scans Compared to Conventional Impression in Vitro.
    Haddadi Y; Bahrami G; Isidor F
    Prim Dent J; 2019 Nov; 8(3):34-39. PubMed ID: 31666171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro.
    Schaefer O; Decker M; Wittstock F; Kuepper H; Guentsch A
    J Dent; 2014 Jun; 42(6):677-83. PubMed ID: 24508541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison.
    Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Nyström I; Thor A
    BMC Oral Health; 2018 Feb; 18(1):27. PubMed ID: 29471825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design.
    Euán R; Figueras-Álvarez O; Cabratosa-Termes J; Oliver-Parra R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Aug; 112(2):155-62. PubMed ID: 24445027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners.
    Jeon JH; Choi BY; Kim CM; Kim JH; Kim HY; Kim WC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):549-53. PubMed ID: 26182854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of finish line locations of tooth preparation on the accuracy of intraoral scanners.
    Son K; Lee KB
    Int J Comput Dent; 2021 Feb; 24(1):29-40. PubMed ID: 34006061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Fitting accuracy of zirconia single crowns produced via digital and conventional impressions-a clinical comparative study.
    Rödiger M; Heinitz A; Bürgers R; Rinke S
    Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Mar; 21(2):579-587. PubMed ID: 27469102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients.
    Boeddinghaus M; Breloer ES; Rehmann P; Wöstmann B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2015 Nov; 19(8):2027-34. PubMed ID: 25693497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan.
    Keeling A; Wu J; Ferrari M
    J Dent; 2017 Apr; 59():33-40. PubMed ID: 28189718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of finish line location and saliva contamination on the accuracy of crown finish line scanning.
    An H; Mickesh GJ; Cho D; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthodont; 2024 Jan; 33(1):86-94. PubMed ID: 36719010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Influence of Tooth Preparation Design and Scan Angulations on the Accuracy of Two Intraoral Digital Scanners: An in Vitro Study Based on 3-Dimensional Comparisons.
    Ammoun R; Suprono MS; Goodacre CJ; Oyoyo U; Carrico CK; Kattadiyil MT
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Mar; 29(3):201-206. PubMed ID: 31994818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Analysis of The Reproducibility of Subgingival Vertical Margins Using Intraoral Optical Scanning (IOS): A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.
    Ferrari Cagidiaco E; Zarone F; Discepoli N; Joda T; Ferrari M
    J Clin Med; 2021 Mar; 10(5):. PubMed ID: 33804358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.