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)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. Fit of monolithic multilayer zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated by conventional versus digital impression: a clinical and laboratory investigations.
    Morsy N; El Kateb M; Azer A; Fathalla S
    Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Sep; 25(9):5363-5373. PubMed ID: 33619632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial.
    Ahrberg D; Lauer HC; Ahrberg M; Weigl P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Mar; 20(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 26070435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. In vitro scan accuracy and time efficiency in various implant-supported fixed partial denture situations.
    Abou-Ayash S; Mathey A; Gäumann F; Mathey A; Donmez MB; Yilmaz B
    J Dent; 2022 Dec; 127():104358. PubMed ID: 36356837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Comparative analysis of intraoral scanners accuracy using 3D software: an in vivo study.
    Pellitteri F; Albertini P; Vogrig A; Spedicato GA; Siciliani G; Lombardo L
    Prog Orthod; 2022 Jul; 23(1):21. PubMed ID: 35781850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual edentulous casts created by laboratory impression scan protocols.
    Peng L; Chen L; Harris BT; Bhandari B; Morton D; Lin WS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):389-395. PubMed ID: 29703675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Measurement of the accuracy of dental working casts using a coordinate measuring machine.
    Potran M; Štrbac B; Puškar T; Hadžistević M; Hodolič J; Trifković B
    Vojnosanit Pregl; 2016 Oct; 73(10):895-903. PubMed ID: 29327892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. The effect of conventional, half-digital, and full-digital fabrication techniques on the retention and apical gap of post and core restorations.
    Hendi AR; Moharrami M; Siadat H; Hajmiragha H; Alikhasi M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Feb; 121(2):364.e1-364.e6. PubMed ID: 30598306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients' preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material.
    Sakornwimon N; Leevailoj C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):386-391. PubMed ID: 28222872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions-An In Vitro Study.
    Ribeiro P; Herrero-Climent M; Díaz-Castro C; Ríos-Santos JV; Padrós R; Mur JG; Falcão C
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2018 Jul; 15(8):. PubMed ID: 30060540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method.
    Schmidt A; Rein PE; Wöstmann B; Schlenz MA
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2021 Apr; 32(4):460-469. PubMed ID: 33469983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions.
    Vigolo P; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):186-92. PubMed ID: 12616240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning.
    Tomita Y; Uechi J; Konno M; Sasamoto S; Iijima M; Mizoguchi I
    Dent Mater J; 2018 Jul; 37(4):628-633. PubMed ID: 29669951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. 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]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence.
    Diker B; Tak Ö
    Int J Prosthodont; 2021; 34(1):101-108. PubMed ID: 33570525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Accuracy of a new elastomeric impression material for complete-arch dental implant impressions.
    Baig MR; Buzayan MM; Yunus N
    J Investig Clin Dent; 2018 May; 9(2):e12320. PubMed ID: 29349910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan.
    Park GH; Son K; Lee KB
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 May; 121(5):803-810. PubMed ID: 30598314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions.
    Ender A; Attin T; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Mar; 115(3):313-20. PubMed ID: 26548890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Effect of dental technician disparities on the 3-dimensional accuracy of definitive casts.
    Emir F; Piskin B; Sipahi C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Mar; 117(3):410-418. PubMed ID: 27677213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.