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 *

185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31590974)

  • 1. Clinical acceptance of single-unit crowns and its association with impression and tissue displacement techniques: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.
    Lawson NC; Litaker MS; Sowell E; Gordan VV; Mungia R; Ronzo KR; Lam BT; Gilbert GH; McCracken MS;
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 May; 123(5):701-709. PubMed ID: 31590974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Impression evaluation and laboratory use for single-unit crowns: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.
    McCracken MS; Litaker MS; George AJ; Durand S; Malekpour S; Marshall DG; Meyerowitz C; Carter L; Gordan VV; Gilbert GH;
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2017 Nov; 148(11):788-796.e4. PubMed ID: 28822536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions.
    Ceyhan JA; Johnson GH; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Aug; 90(2):143-9. PubMed ID: 12886207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Laboratory Technician Assessment of the Quality of Single-Unit Crown Preparations and Impressions as Predictors of the Clinical Acceptability of Crowns as Determined by the Treating Dentist: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.
    McCracken MS; Litaker MS; Thomson AES; Slootsky A; Gilbert GH;
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Feb; 29(2):114-123. PubMed ID: 31893566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A clinical study comparing the three-dimensional accuracy of a working die generated from two dual-arch trays and a complete-arch custom tray.
    Ceyhan JA; Johnson GH; Lepe X; Phillips KM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Sep; 90(3):228-34. PubMed ID: 12942055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [
    Xu XX; Cao Y; Zhao YJ; Jia L; Xie QF
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Dec; 53(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 33550336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays.
    Johnson GH; Mancl LA; Schwedhelm ER; Verhoef DR; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Jan; 103(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 20105676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Impression Techniques Used for Single-Unit Crowns: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.
    McCracken MS; Louis DR; Litaker MS; Minyé HM; Oates T; Gordan VV; Marshall DG; Meyerowitz C; Gilbert GH;
    J Prosthodont; 2018 Oct; 27(8):722-732. PubMed ID: 28076661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The accuracy of dual-arch impressions: a pilot study.
    Larson TD; Nielsen MA; Brackett WW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Jun; 87(6):625-7. PubMed ID: 12131884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A clinical study comparing marginal and occlusal accuracy of crowns fabricated from double-arch and complete-arch impressions.
    Cox JR
    Aust Dent J; 2005 Jun; 50(2):90-4. PubMed ID: 16050087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. A clinical trial to compare double-arch and complete-arch impression techniques in the provision of indirect restorations.
    Lane DA; Randall RC; Lane NS; Wilson NH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):141-5. PubMed ID: 12616233
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A preliminary survey of impression trays used in the fabrication of fixed indirect restorations.
    Mitchell ST; Ramp MH; Ramp LC; Liu PR
    J Prosthodont; 2009 Oct; 18(7):582-8. PubMed ID: 19523024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A clinical study comparing digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported prostheses: A crossover clinical trial.
    Lee SJ; Jamjoom FZ; Le T; Radics A; Gallucci GO
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Jul; 128(1):42-48. PubMed ID: 33602542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The effect of impression volume and double-arch trays on the registration of maximum intercuspation.
    Hahn SM; Millstein PL; Kinnunen TH; Wright RF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Dec; 102(6):362-7. PubMed ID: 19961994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy of casts generated from dual-arch impressions.
    Breeding LC; Dixon DL
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Oct; 84(4):403-7. PubMed ID: 11044846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A clinical pilot study of the dimensional accuracy of double-arch and complete-arch impressions.
    Cox JR; Brandt RL; Hughes HJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 May; 87(5):510-5. PubMed ID: 12070514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Disposable plastic trays and their effect on polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impression accuracy-an in vitro study.
    Rues S; Stober T; Bargum T; Rammelsberg P; Zenthöfer A
    Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Mar; 25(3):1475-1484. PubMed ID: 32885321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions.
    Sailer I; Mühlemann S; Fehmer V; Hämmerle CHF; Benic GI
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Jan; 121(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 30017152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.