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 *

403 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31058428)

  • 1. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner.
    Mennito AS; Evans ZP; Nash J; Bocklet C; Lauer Kelly A; Bacro T; Cayouette M; Ludlow M; Renne WG
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2019 Jul; 31(4):369-377. PubMed ID: 31058428
    [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. Effect of scan substrates on accuracy of 7 intraoral digital impression systems using human maxilla model.
    Bocklet C; Renne W; Mennito A; Bacro T; Latham J; Evans Z; Ludlow M; Kelly A; Nash J
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2019 May; 22 Suppl 1():168-174. PubMed ID: 31074138
    [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. 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]  

  • 6. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2011; 14(1):11-21. PubMed ID: 21657122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems.
    Mennito AS; Evans ZP; Lauer AW; Patel RB; Ludlow ME; Renne WG
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2018 Mar; 30(2):113-118. PubMed ID: 29476599
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.
    Ender A; Zimmermann M; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2019; 22(1):11-19. PubMed ID: 30848250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    Quintessence Int; 2015 Jan; 46(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 25019118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison.
    Keul C; Güth JF
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Feb; 24(2):735-745. PubMed ID: 31134345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.
    Flügge TV; Schlager S; Nelson K; Nahles S; Metzger MC
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Sep; 144(3):471-8. PubMed ID: 23992820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of the accuracy of multiple digital impression systems on a fully edentulous maxilla.
    Gutmacher Z; Kelly A; Renne W; Hoover M; Mennito A; Teich S; Cayouette M; Ludlow M
    Quintessence Int; 2021 May; 52(6):488-495. PubMed ID: 33880909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.