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 *

432 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31029133)

  • 1. Deviations in palatal region between indirect and direct digital models: an in vivo study.
    Zhongpeng Y; Tianmin X; Ruoping J
    BMC Oral Health; 2019 Apr; 19(1):66. PubMed ID: 31029133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation.
    Kim RJ; Park JM; Shim JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):895-903.e1. PubMed ID: 30006228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluating the influence of palate scanning on the accuracy of complete-arch digital impressions-An in vitro study.
    Schmalzl J; Keskeny GÁ; Hermann P; Pál A; Géczi Z; Borbély J; Róth I
    J Dent; 2024 Jun; 145():105014. PubMed ID: 38648874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner.
    Müller P; Ender A; Joda T; Katsoulis J
    Quintessence Int; 2016 Apr; 47(4):343-9. PubMed ID: 26824085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Trueness and precision of complete arch dentate digital models produced by intraoral and desktop scanners: An ex-vivo study.
    Vag J; Stevens CD; Badahman MH; Ludlow M; Sharp M; Brenes C; Mennito A; Renne W
    J Dent; 2023 Dec; 139():104764. PubMed ID: 37898433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.
    Renne W; Ludlow M; Fryml J; Schurch Z; Mennito A; Kessler R; Lauer A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Jul; 118(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 28024822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Impact of the superimposition reference area on intraoral scanning accuracy in a partially dentate maxilla.
    Negm EE; Patel M; Ryan P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jul; 132(1):189.e1-189.e11. PubMed ID: 38556406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Validation of 3D documentation of palatal soft tissue shape, color, and irregularity with intraoral scanning.
    Deferm JT; Schreurs R; Baan F; Bruggink R; Merkx MAW; Xi T; Bergé SJ; Maal TJJ
    Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Apr; 22(3):1303-1309. PubMed ID: 28983706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.
    Lim JH; Park JM; Kim M; Heo SJ; Myung JY
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Feb; 119(2):225-232. PubMed ID: 28689906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Impact of the superimposition methods on accuracy analyses in complete-arch digital implant investigation.
    Limones A; Cascos R; Molinero-Mourelle P; Abou-Ayash S; de Parga JAMV; Celemin A; Gómez-Polo M
    J Dent; 2024 Aug; 147():105081. PubMed ID: 38797486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Understanding the effect of scan spans on the accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners.
    Chen Y; Zhai Z; Watanabe S; Nakano T; Ishigaki S
    J Dent; 2022 Sep; 124():104220. PubMed ID: 35817227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accuracy of three digital scanning methods for complete-arch tooth preparation: An in vitro comparison.
    Gao H; Liu X; Liu M; Yang X; Tan J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1001-1008. PubMed ID: 33736864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance.
    Atieh MA; Ritter AV; Ko CC; Duqum I
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):400-405. PubMed ID: 28222869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method.
    Nagy Z; Simon B; Mennito A; Evans Z; Renne W; Vág J
    BMC Oral Health; 2020 Apr; 20(1):97. PubMed ID: 32264943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of intraoral scanners in different complete arch scan patterns.
    Pattamavilai S; Ongthiemsak C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jan; 131(1):155-162. PubMed ID: 35256181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners.
    Treesh JC; Liacouras PC; Taft RM; Brooks DI; Raiciulescu S; Ellert DO; Grant GT; Ye L
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):382-388. PubMed ID: 29724554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.