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 *

245 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31757443)

  • 1. Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: A systematic review.
    Wulfman C; Naveau A; Rignon-Bret C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Aug; 124(2):161-167. PubMed ID: 31757443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: A systematic review.
    Zhang YJ; Shi JY; Qian SJ; Qiao SC; Lai HC
    Int J Oral Implantol (Berl); 2021 May; 14(2):157-179. PubMed ID: 34006079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review.
    Michelinakis G; Apostolakis D; Kamposiora P; Papavasiliou G; Özcan M
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Jan; 21(1):37. PubMed ID: 33478459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study.
    Tohme H; Lawand G; Chmielewska M; Makhzoume J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Feb; 129(2):354-362. PubMed ID: 34112521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: Part 2-Patient factors.
    Revilla-León M; Kois DE; Kois JC
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2023 Jan; 35(1):241-249. PubMed ID: 36639916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Influence of implant position on the accuracy of intraoral scanning in fully edentulous arches: A systematic review.
    Carneiro Pereira AL; Medeiros VR; da Fonte Porto Carreiro A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Dec; 126(6):749-755. PubMed ID: 33268069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses.
    Mizumoto RM; Yilmaz B; McGlumphy EA; Seidt J; Johnston WM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):96-104. PubMed ID: 31040026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions.
    Albayrak B; Sukotjo C; Wee AG; Korkmaz İH; Bayındır F
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Feb; 30(2):163-170. PubMed ID: 32935894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.
    Marghalani A; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Kudara Y; El Rafie K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579. PubMed ID: 28927923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review.
    Rutkūnas V; Gečiauskaitė A; Jegelevičius D; Vaitiekūnas M
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2017; 10 Suppl 1():101-120. PubMed ID: 28944372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Flügge T; van der Meer WJ; Gonzalez BG; Vach K; Wismeijer D; Wang P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():374-392. PubMed ID: 30328182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy of digital technologies for the scanning of facial, skeletal, and intraoral tissues: A systematic review.
    Bohner L; Gamba DD; Hanisch M; Marcio BS; Tortamano Neto P; Laganá DC; Sesma N
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Feb; 121(2):246-251. PubMed ID: 30017156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. [Accuracy analysis of full-arch implant digital impressions when using a geometric feature].
    Ke YF; Zhang YP; Chen JK; Chen H; Wang Y; Sun YC
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2022 Feb; 57(2):162-167. PubMed ID: 35152652
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Fit of complete-arch implant-supported prostheses produced from an intraoral scan by using an auxiliary device and from an elastomeric impression: A pilot clinical trial.
    Roig E; Roig M; Garza LC; Costa S; Maia P; Espona J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):404-414. PubMed ID: 33610331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study.
    Andriessen FS; Rijkens DR; van der Meer WJ; Wismeijer DW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Mar; 111(3):186-94. PubMed ID: 24210732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.