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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31034547)

  • 1. Precision and Trueness of Computerized Optical Impressions in Maxillectomy Defects: An In Vitro 3D Comparison.
    Elbashti ME; Hattori M; Patzelt SB; Aswehlee AM; Sumita YI; Taniguchi H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2019; 32(3):289-292. PubMed ID: 31034547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Feasibility and Accuracy of Digitizing Edentulous Maxillectomy Defects: A Comparative Study.
    Elbashti ME; Hattori M; Patzelt SB; Schulze D; Sumita YI; Taniguchi H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2017; 30(2):147-149. PubMed ID: 28267823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study.
    Imburgia M; Logozzo S; Hauschild U; Veronesi G; Mangano C; Mangano FG
    BMC Oral Health; 2017 Jun; 17(1):92. PubMed ID: 28577366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study.
    Mangano FG; Hauschild U; Veronesi G; Imburgia M; Mangano C; Admakin O
    BMC Oral Health; 2019 Jun; 19(1):101. PubMed ID: 31170969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows.
    Sim JY; Jang Y; Kim WC; Kim HY; Lee DH; Kim JH
    J Prosthodont Res; 2019 Jan; 63(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 29615324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization.
    Güth JF; Runkel C; Beuer F; Stimmelmayr M; Edelhoff D; Keul C
    Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Jun; 21(5):1445-1455. PubMed ID: 27406138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Accuracy of Three Digitization Methods for the Dental Arch with Various Tooth Preparation Designs: An In Vitro Study.
    Oh KC; Lee B; Park YB; Moon HS
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):195-201. PubMed ID: 30427097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Volumetric measurement of dentoalveolar defects by means of intraoral 3D scanner and gravimetric model.
    Lindström MJR; Ahmad M; Jimbo R; Ameri A; Vult Von Steyern P; Becktor JP
    Odontology; 2019 Jul; 107(3):353-359. PubMed ID: 30617638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data.
    Patzelt SB; Bishti S; Stampf S; Att W
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Nov; 145(11):1133-40. PubMed ID: 25359645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method.
    Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Nyström I; Rydén J; Thor A
    J Dent; 2018 Feb; 69():110-118. PubMed ID: 29246490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effect of software updates on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners.
    Vág J; Renne W; Revell G; Ludlow M; Mennito A; Teich ST; Gutmacher Z
    Quintessence Int; 2021 Jun; 52(7):636-644. PubMed ID: 33749223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of the accuracy of 2 digital intraoral scanners: A 3D analysis study.
    Alzahrani SJ; El-Hammali H; Morgano SM; Elkassaby H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Dec; 126(6):787-792. PubMed ID: 33172647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effects of Scanning Strategy and Scanner Type on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scans: A New Approach for Assessing the Accuracy of Scanned Data.
    Oh KC; Park JM; Moon HS
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Jul; 29(6):518-523. PubMed ID: 32133690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: An in vitro study.
    Yilmaz B; Gouveia D; Marques VR; Diker E; Schimmel M; Abou-Ayash S
    J Dent; 2021 Jul; 110():103684. PubMed ID: 33961938
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.