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.
469 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31302771)
21. In-vitro accuracy of casts for orthodontic purposes obtained by a conventional and by a printer workflow. Reich S; Herstell H; Raith S; Kühne C; Berndt S PLoS One; 2023; 18(3):e0282840. PubMed ID: 36920945 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Trueness of CAD/CAM digitization with a desktop scanner - an in vitro study. Joós-Kovács G; Vecsei B; Körmendi S; Gyarmathy VA; Borbély J; Hermann P BMC Oral Health; 2019 Dec; 19(1):280. PubMed ID: 31830970 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Accuracy of complete-arch implant impression made with occlusal registration material. Papazoglou E; Wee AG; Carr AB; Urban I; Margaritis V J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):143-148. PubMed ID: 31079882 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations. Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. A comparison of the accuracy of polyether, polyvinyl siloxane, and plaster impressions for long-span implant-supported prostheses. Hoods-Moonsammy VJ; Owen P; Howes DG Int J Prosthodont; 2014; 27(5):433-8. PubMed ID: 25191885 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Accuracy of digitization obtained from scannable and nonscannable elastomeric impression materials. García-Martínez I; CáceresMonllor D; Solaberrieta E; Ferreiroa A; Pradíes G J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Feb; 125(2):300-306. PubMed ID: 32089364 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners. Lee JJ; Jeong ID; Park JY; Jeon JH; Kim JH; Kim WC J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Feb; 117(2):253-259. PubMed ID: 27666500 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Accuracy of impressions and casts using different implant impression techniques in a multi-implant system with an internal hex connection. Wenz HJ; Hertrampf K Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(1):39-47. PubMed ID: 18416411 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. The precision of two alternative indirect workflows for digital model production: an illusion or a possibility? Elkersh NM; Fahmy RA; Zayet MK; Gaweesh YS; Hassan MG Clin Oral Investig; 2023 Jul; 27(7):3787-3797. PubMed ID: 37046002 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Menini M; Setti P; Pera F; Pera P; Pesce P Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Apr; 22(3):1253-1262. PubMed ID: 28965251 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit. Papaspyridakos P; Hirayama H; Chen CJ; Ho CH; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Sep; 27(9):1099-105. PubMed ID: 26374268 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Comparison of the accuracy between full-arch digital scans and scannable impression materials: an in vitro study. Grande F; Celeghin G; Gallinaro F; Mobilio N; Catapano S Minerva Dent Oral Sci; 2023 Aug; 72(4):168-175. PubMed ID: 37066893 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study. Vecsei B; Joós-Kovács G; Borbély J; Hermann P J Prosthodont Res; 2017 Apr; 61(2):177-184. PubMed ID: 27461088 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Lee SJ; Betensky RA; Gianneschi GE; Gallucci GO Clin Oral Implants Res; 2015 Jun; 26(6):715-9. PubMed ID: 24720423 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A comparative evaluation of photogrammetry software programs and conventional impression techniques for the fabrication of nasal maxillofacial prostheses. Buzayan MM; Elkezza AH; Ahmad SF; Mohd Salleh N; Sivakumar I J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Sep; ():. PubMed ID: 37748996 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae. Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P; Tsigarida A; Romeo D; Chen YW; Natto Z; Ercoli C J Prosthodont; 2020 Apr; 29(4):281-286. PubMed ID: 32166793 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Digital workflow: In vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans. Papaspyridakos P; Chen YW; Alshawaf B; Kang K; Finkelman M; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Nov; 124(5):589-593. PubMed ID: 31959396 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Evaluation of accuracy of complete-arch multiple-unit abutment-level dental implant impressions using different impression and splinting materials. Buzayan M; Baig MR; Yunus N Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(6):1512-20. PubMed ID: 24278919 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]