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 *

469 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31302771)

  • 1. Digital impressions in dentistry-accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop scanners.
    Runkel C; Güth JF; Erdelt K; Keul C
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Mar; 24(3):1249-1257. PubMed ID: 31302771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of data obtained from impression scans and cast scans using different impression materials.
    Keul C; Runkel C; Güth JF; Schubert O
    Int J Comput Dent; 2020; 23(2):129-138. PubMed ID: 32555766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing.
    Güth JF; Keul C; Stimmelmayr M; Beuer F; Edelhoff D
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 May; 17(4):1201-8. PubMed ID: 22847854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Positional trueness of abutments by using a digital die-merging protocol compared with complete arch direct digital scans and conventional dental impressions.
    Jelicich A; Scialabba R; Lee SJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Feb; 131(2):293-300. PubMed ID: 35430047
    [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. Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts.
    Buda M; Bratos M; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):913-918. PubMed ID: 29961627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Prosthesis accuracy of fit on 3D-printed casts versus stone casts: A comparative study in the anterior maxilla.
    Abdeen L; Chen YW; Kostagianni A; Finkelman M; Papathanasiou A; Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2022 Dec; 34(8):1238-1246. PubMed ID: 36415927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro.
    Güth JF; Edelhoff D; Schweiger J; Keul C
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Sep; 20(7):1487-94. PubMed ID: 26454734
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: A comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing.
    Wesemann C; Muallah J; Mah J; Bumann A
    Quintessence Int; 2017; 48(1):41-50. PubMed ID: 27834416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems.
    Shembesh M; Ali A; Finkelman M; Weber HP; Zandparsa R
    J Prosthodont; 2017 Oct; 26(7):581-586. PubMed ID: 26855068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study.
    Alshawaf B; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):835-842. PubMed ID: 29926977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Three-dimensional analysis of the accuracy of conventional and completely digital interocclusal registration methods.
    Ries JM; Grünler C; Wichmann M; Matta RE
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):994-1000. PubMed ID: 33888327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review.
    Kihara H; Hatakeyama W; Komine F; Takafuji K; Takahashi T; Yokota J; Oriso K; Kondo H
    J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Apr; 64(2):109-113. PubMed ID: 31474576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.
    Anadioti E; Aquilino SA; Gratton DG; Holloway JA; Denry I; Thomas GW; Qian F
    J Prosthodont; 2014 Dec; 23(8):610-7. PubMed ID: 24995593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods.
    Cho SH; Schaefer O; Thompson GA; Guentsch A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Apr; 113(4):310-5. PubMed ID: 25682531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.