851 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30521661)
1. 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]
2. 3D Accuracy of a Conventional Method Versus Three Digital Scanning Strategies for Completely Edentulous Maxillary Implant Impressions.
Blanco-Plard A; Hernandez A; Pino F; Vargas N; Rivas-Tumanyan S; Elias A
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2023 Dec; 38(6):1211-1219. PubMed ID: 38085753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. In Vitro Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: The Effect of Implant Angulation.
Chia VA; Esguerra RJ; Teoh KH; Teo JW; Wong KM; Tan KB
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2017; 32(2):313–321. PubMed ID: 28231346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: Effects of Different Scanners and Implant Level.
Chew AA; Esguerra RJ; Teoh KH; Wong KM; Ng SD; Tan KB
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2017; 32(1):70-80. PubMed ID: 27706264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Three-dimensional accuracy of plastic transfer impression copings for three implant systems.
Teo JW; Tan KB; Nicholls JI; Wong KM; Uy J
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2014; 29(3):577-84. PubMed ID: 24818195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine.
Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J
J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: A systematic review.
Zhang YJ; Shi JY; Qian SJ; Qiao SC; Lai HC
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl); 2021 May; 14(2):157-179. PubMed ID: 34006079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Three-dimensional accuracy of a digitally coded healing abutment implant impression system.
Ng SD; Tan KB; Teoh KH; Cheng AC; Nicholls JI
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2014; 29(4):927-36. PubMed ID: 25032774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses.
Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA
J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners.
Di Fiore A; Meneghello R; Graiff L; Savio G; Vigolo P; Monaco C; Stellini E
J Prosthodont Res; 2019 Oct; 63(4):396-403. PubMed ID: 31072730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accuracy of photogrammetric imaging versus conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A comparative clinical study.
Zhang YJ; Qian SJ; Lai HC; Shi JY
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Aug; 130(2):212-218. PubMed ID: 34776266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method.
Schmidt A; Rein PE; Wöstmann B; Schlenz MA
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2021 Apr; 32(4):460-469. PubMed ID: 33469983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of scanbody design and intraoral scanner on the trueness of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study.
Meneghetti PC; Li J; Borella PS; Mendonça G; Burnett LH
PLoS One; 2023; 18(12):e0295790. PubMed ID: 38113200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
