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.
194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30580982)
1. Edentulous jaw impression techniques: An in vivo comparison of trueness. Chebib N; Kalberer N; Srinivasan M; Maniewicz S; Perneger T; Müller F J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Apr; 121(4):623-630. PubMed ID: 30580982 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. In silico evaluation of the peripheral and inner seals in complete denture master impressions using a custom-developed 3D software. Kalberer N; Chebib N; Wachter W; Lee H; Müller F; Srinivasan M Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Jan; 25(1):125-132. PubMed ID: 32488486 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual edentulous casts created by laboratory impression scan protocols. Peng L; Chen L; Harris BT; Bhandari B; Morton D; Lin WS J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):389-395. PubMed ID: 29703675 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Accuracy of impression-making methods in edentulous arches: An in vitro study encompassing conventional and digital methods. Li J; Moon HS; Kim JH; Yoon HI; Oh KC J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):479-486. PubMed ID: 33583617 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. In vitro evaluation of the impact of intraoral scanner, scanning aids, and the scanned arch on the scan accuracy of edentulous arches. Jamjoom FZ; Aldghim A; Aldibasi O; Yilmaz B J Prosthodont; 2024 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 38953541 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients' preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. Sakornwimon N; Leevailoj C J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):386-391. PubMed ID: 28222872 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques. Malik J; Rodriguez J; Weisbloom M; Petridis H Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(2):107-113. PubMed ID: 29518805 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of Utilizing Cheek Retractors on Patient Satisfaction and Trueness of Peripheral Borders in Maxillary Digital Scans for Totally Edentulous Patients: An In Vivo Study. Saadeh C; Tohme H; Lawand G; Khoury N; Yared C Int J Prosthodont; 2024 Mar; 0(0):1-23. PubMed ID: 38536145 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions for Whole Upper Jaws, Including Full Dentitions and Palatal Soft Tissues. Gan N; Xiong Y; Jiao T PLoS One; 2016; 11(7):e0158800. PubMed ID: 27383409 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Three-dimensional differences between intraoral scans and conventional impressions of edentulous jaws: A clinical study. Lo Russo L; Caradonna G; Troiano G; Salamini A; Guida L; Ciavarella D J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Feb; 123(2):264-268. PubMed ID: 31153614 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Computer aided design and 3-dimensional printing for the production of custom trays of maxillary edentulous jaws based on 3-dimensional scan of primary impression]. Chen H; Zhao T; Wang Y; Sun YC Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2016 Oct; 48(5):900-904. PubMed ID: 27752178 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible. Hayama H; Fueki K; Wadachi J; Wakabayashi N J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Jul; 62(3):347-352. PubMed ID: 29502933 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Fit and retention of complete denture bases: Part II - conventional impressions versus digital scans: A clinical controlled crossover study. Chebib N; Imamura Y; El Osta N; Srinivasan M; Müller F; Maniewicz S J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Apr; 131(4):618-625. PubMed ID: 36055812 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The trueness of scans using one intraoral scanner in different partially edentulous conditions. Majeed-Saidan A; Dutra V; Levon JA; Chu TG; Morton D; Alfaraj A; Lin WS J Prosthodont; 2023 Aug; 32(7):588-593. PubMed ID: 35977883 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Intraoral optical impression versus conventional impression for fully edentulous maxilla: an in vivo comparative study. Willmann C; Deschamps A; Taddei-Gross C; Musset AM; Lai C; Etienne O Int J Comput Dent; 2024 Mar; 27(1):19-26. PubMed ID: 36815624 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Computerized optical impression making of edentulous jaws - An in vivo feasibility study. Hack G; Liberman L; Vach K; Tchorz JP; Kohal RJ; Patzelt SBM J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Oct; 64(4):444-453. PubMed ID: 32061572 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. Patzelt SB; Vonau S; Stampf S; Att W J Am Dent Assoc; 2013 Aug; 144(8):914-20. PubMed ID: 23904578 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Digital assessment of preliminary impression accuracy for edentulous jaws: Comparisons of 3-dimensional surfaces between study and working casts. Matsuda T; Goto T; Kurahashi K; Kashiwabara T; Watanabe M; Tomotake Y; Nagao K; Ichikawa T J Prosthodont Res; 2016 Jul; 60(3):206-12. PubMed ID: 26822762 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]