466 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31959396)
1. Digital workflow: In vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans.
Papaspyridakos P; Chen YW; Alshawaf B; Kang K; Finkelman M; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Nov; 124(5):589-593. PubMed ID: 31959396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Prosthesis accuracy of fit on 3D-printed casts versus stone casts: A comparative study in the anterior maxilla.
Abdeen L; Chen YW; Kostagianni A; Finkelman M; Papathanasiou A; Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2022 Dec; 34(8):1238-1246. PubMed ID: 36415927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study.
Alshawaf B; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):835-842. PubMed ID: 29926977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings.
Conejo J; Yoo TH; Atria PJ; Fraiman H; Blatz MB
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Mar; 131(3):475.e1-475.e7. PubMed ID: 38182453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Positional trueness of abutments by using a digital die-merging protocol compared with complete arch direct digital scans and conventional dental impressions.
Jelicich A; Scialabba R; Lee SJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Feb; 131(2):293-300. PubMed ID: 35430047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Digital vs Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Retrospective Analysis of 36 Edentulous Jaws.
Papaspyridakos P; De Souza A; Finkelman M; Sicilia E; Gotsis S; Chen YW; Vazouras K; Chochlidakis K
J Prosthodont; 2023 Apr; 32(4):325-330. PubMed ID: 35524647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.
Amin S; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Nov; 28(11):1360-1367. PubMed ID: 28039903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Accuracy of 3D Printed Implant Casts Versus Stone Casts: A Comparative Study in the Anterior Maxilla.
Banjar A; Chen YW; Kostagianni A; Finkelman M; Papathanasiou A; Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P
J Prosthodont; 2021 Dec; 30(9):783-788. PubMed ID: 33474754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Accuracy of 3D Printed and Digital Casts Produced from Intraoral and Extraoral Scanners with Different Scanning Technologies: In Vitro Study.
Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
J Prosthodont; 2022 Jul; 31(6):521-528. PubMed ID: 34661950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Complete digital workflow for prosthesis prototype fabrication with double digital scanning: A retrospective study with 45 edentulous jaws.
Papaspyridakos P; Vazouras K; Gotsis S; Bokhary A; Sicilia E; Kudara Y; Bedrossian A; Chochlidakis K
J Prosthodont; 2023 Aug; 32(7):571-578. PubMed ID: 36527731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and 3D-printed casts compared with conventional stone casts.
Ellakany P; Al-Harbi F; El Tantawi M; Mohsen C
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Mar; 127(3):438-444. PubMed ID: 33308856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Accuracy of a chairside intraoral scanner compared with a laboratory scanner for the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro 3-dimensional comparative analysis.
Zarone F; Ruggiero G; Ferrari M; Mangano F; Joda T; Sorrentino R
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Dec; 124(6):761.e1-761.e7. PubMed ID: 33289647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Trueness of 3-dimensionally printed complete arch implant analog casts.
Gagnon-Audet A; An H; Jensen UF; Bratos M; Sorensen JA
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Aug; ():. PubMed ID: 37558526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.
Papaspyridakos P; Gallucci GO; Chen CJ; Hanssen S; Naert I; Vandenberghe B
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Apr; 27(4):465-72. PubMed ID: 25682892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Complete Digital Workflow for Prosthesis Prototype Fabrication with Double Digital Scanning: Accuracy of Fit Assessment.
Papaspyridakos P; AlFulaij F; Bokhary A; Sallustio A; Chochlidakis K
J Prosthodont; 2023 Jan; 32(1):49-53. PubMed ID: 35176178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts.
Buda M; Bratos M; Sorensen JA
J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):913-918. PubMed ID: 29961627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Accuracy of three digital scanning methods for complete-arch tooth preparation: An in vitro comparison.
Gao H; Liu X; Liu M; Yang X; Tan J
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1001-1008. PubMed ID: 33736864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of scan powder and scanning technology on measured deviations of complete-arch implant supported frameworks digitized with industrial and intraoral scanners.
Donmez MB; Çakmak G; Dede DÖ; Küçükekenci AS; Lu WE; Schumacher FL; Revilla-León M; Yilmaz B
J Dent; 2023 Nov; 138():104736. PubMed ID: 37802291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
