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.
230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31429638)
1. Photogrammetric and Intraoral Digital Impression Technique for the Rehabilitation of Multiple Unfavorably Positioned Dental Implants: A Clinical Report. Molinero-Mourelle P; Lam W; Cascos-Sánchez R; Azevedo L; Gómez-Polo M J Oral Implantol; 2019 Oct; 45(5):398-402. PubMed ID: 31429638 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses. Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. Ma B; Yue X; Sun Y; Peng L; Geng W BMC Oral Health; 2021 Dec; 21(1):636. PubMed ID: 34893053 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A fully digital approach to replicate functional and aesthetic parameters in implant-supported full-arch rehabilitation. Monaco C; Ragazzini N; Scheda L; Evangelisti E J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Jul; 62(3):383-385. PubMed ID: 29191608 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques. Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Mancl L; Brudvik JS; Raigrodski AJ J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Oct; 110(4):243-51. PubMed ID: 24079558 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants. Pradíes G; Ferreiroa A; Özcan M; Giménez B; Martínez-Rus F J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Apr; 145(4):338-44. PubMed ID: 24686966 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Merging intraoral scans and CBCT: a novel technique for improving the accuracy of 3D digital models for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. Gómez-Polo M; Ballesteros J; Padilla PP; Pulido PP; Revilla-León M; Ortega R Int J Comput Dent; 2021 Jun; 24(2):117-123. PubMed ID: 34085497 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Maxillary Full-Arch Immediately Loaded Implant-Supported Fixed Prosthesis Designed and Produced by Photogrammetry and Digital Printing: A Clinical Report. Peñarrocha-Oltra D; Agustín-Panadero R; Pradíes G; Gomar-Vercher S; Peñarrocha-Diago M J Prosthodont; 2017 Jan; 26(1):75-81. PubMed ID: 26662261 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Accuracy of photogrammetric imaging versus conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A comparative clinical study. Zhang YJ; Qian SJ; Lai HC; Shi JY J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Aug; 130(2):212-218. PubMed ID: 34776266 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Digital Impression Taking for Maxillary Full-Arch Restoration With Immediate Loading: A Case Report. Rico JP; Brinkmann JC; Martin MC; González MA; Arribas CT; Alonso VR; Suárez CL; Suárez García MJ J Oral Implantol; 2022 Apr; 48(2):125-132. PubMed ID: 33710306 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. [Accuracy of photogrammetry and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an Sun YJ; Ma BW; Yue XX; Lin X; Geng W Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2022 Feb; 57(2):168-172. PubMed ID: 35152653 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of coded healing abutment height and position on the trueness of digital intraoral implant scans. Batak B; Yilmaz B; Shah K; Rathi R; Schimmel M; Lang L J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Mar; 123(3):466-472. PubMed ID: 31542216 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Photogrammetry Impression Technique: A Case History Report. Sánchez-Monescillo A; Sánchez-Turrión A; Vellon-Domarco E; Salinas-Goodier C; Prados-Frutos JC Int J Prosthodont; 2016; 29(1):71-3. PubMed ID: 26757333 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Guided implant scanning: A procedure for improving the accuracy of implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. Gómez-Polo M; Ballesteros J; Perales-Padilla P; Perales-Pulido P; Gómez-Polo C; Ortega R J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Aug; 124(2):135-139. PubMed ID: 31761274 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Precision and Accuracy of a Digital Impression Scanner in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation. Pesce P; Pera F; Setti P; Menini M Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(2):171-175. PubMed ID: 29518813 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]