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.
254 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31791324)
21. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark. Kim JE; Amelya A; Shin Y; Shim JS J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Jun; 117(6):755-761. PubMed ID: 27863856 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position. Kim RJ; Benic GI; Park JM PLoS One; 2019; 14(11):e0222070. PubMed ID: 31743331 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Accuracy of Scanned Stock Abutments Using Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study. Kim JE; Hong YS; Kang YJ; Kim JH; Shim JS J Prosthodont; 2019 Aug; 28(7):797-803. PubMed ID: 31250506 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner. Revilla-León M; Subramanian SG; Özcan M; Krishnamurthy VR J Prosthodont; 2020 Feb; 29(2):107-113. PubMed ID: 31860144 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. Fukazawa S; Odaira C; Kondo H J Prosthodont Res; 2017 Oct; 61(4):450-459. PubMed ID: 28216020 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. Renne W; Ludlow M; Fryml J; Schurch Z; Mennito A; Kessler R; Lauer A J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Jul; 118(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 28024822 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Trueness of Intraoral Scanners Considering Operator Experience and Three Different Implant Scenarios: A Preliminary Report. Canullo L; Colombo M; Menini M; Sorge P; Pesce P Int J Prosthodont; 2021; 34(2):250–253. PubMed ID: 32589002 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. In vitro comparative analysis of scanning accuracy of intraoral and laboratory scanners in measuring the distance between multiple implants. Natsubori R; Fukazawa S; Chiba T; Tanabe N; Kihara H; Kondo H Int J Implant Dent; 2022 Apr; 8(1):18. PubMed ID: 35416598 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance. Atieh MA; Ritter AV; Ko CC; Duqum I J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):400-405. PubMed ID: 28222869 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Precision of Dental Implant Digitization Using Intraoral Scanners. Flügge TV; Att W; Metzger MC; Nelson K Int J Prosthodont; 2016; 29(3):277-83. PubMed ID: 27148990 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Influence of titanium dioxide and composite on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner for bilateral upper posterior edentulous jaw (Kennedy class I) scanning: An in vitro study. Vo HM; Huynh NC; Tran TT; Hoang HT; Nguyen AT J Dent; 2023 Dec; 139():104747. PubMed ID: 37863172 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. Kihara H; Hatakeyama W; Komine F; Takafuji K; Takahashi T; Yokota J; Oriso K; Kondo H J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Apr; 64(2):109-113. PubMed ID: 31474576 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. Imburgia M; Logozzo S; Hauschild U; Veronesi G; Mangano C; Mangano FG BMC Oral Health; 2017 Jun; 17(1):92. PubMed ID: 28577366 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Intraoral optical impression versus conventional impression for fully edentulous maxilla: an in vivo comparative study. Willmann C; Deschamps A; Taddei-Gross C; Musset AM; Lai C; Etienne O Int J Comput Dent; 2024 Mar; 27(1):19-26. PubMed ID: 36815624 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Clinical Factors Influence the Trueness of Intra-oral Scanning. Jivanescu A; Rotar P; Hategan S; Pricop C; Rus R; Goguta L Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2019 May; 27(1):51-55. PubMed ID: 31046207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning of Edentulous Jaws with and without Resin Markers. Tao C; Zhao YJ; Sun YC; Heng MD; Xie QF; Pan SX Chin J Dent Res; 2020; 23(4):265-271. PubMed ID: 33491358 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. Latham J; Ludlow M; Mennito A; Kelly A; Evans Z; Renne W J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):85-95. PubMed ID: 30982616 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]