463 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31959396)
21. Effect of additive manufacturing process and storage condition on the dimensional accuracy and stability of 3D-printed dental casts.
Yousef H; Harris BT; Elathamna EN; Morton D; Lin WS
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1041-1046. PubMed ID: 33785200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques.
Lyu M; Di P; Lin Y; Jiang X
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1017-1023. PubMed ID: 33640093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A comparative study assessing the precision and trueness of digital and printed casts produced from several intraoral and extraoral scanners in full arch and short span (3-unit FPD) scanning: An in vitro study.
Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
J Prosthodont; 2023 Jun; 32(5):423-430. PubMed ID: 35852379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. [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]
26. Accuracy of 3-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated on 3D-printed casts.
Jang Y; Sim JY; Park JK; Kim WC; Kim HY; Kim JH
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):135-142. PubMed ID: 31027960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Trueness and precision of mandibular complete-arch implant scans when different data acquisition methods are used.
Demirel M; Donmez MB; Şahmalı SM
J Dent; 2023 Nov; 138():104700. PubMed ID: 37714451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Accuracy of digital complete-arch, multi-implant scans made in the edentulous jaw with gingival movement simulation: An in vitro study.
Knechtle N; Wiedemeier D; Mehl A; Ender A
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):468-478. PubMed ID: 33612335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Comparative analysis of intaglio surface trueness of cement-retained implant-supported prostheses generated by a cast-free digital workflow and a three-dimensionally printed cast workflow.
Hwang JY; Yoon HI
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Feb; 131(2):272.e1-272.e7. PubMed ID: 36180262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Accuracy of different digital acquisition methods in complete arch implant-supported prostheses: An in vitro study.
Pinto RJ; Casado SA; Chmielewski K; Caramês JM; Marques DS
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jul; 132(1):172-177. PubMed ID: 37620183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Three-dimensional differences between intraoral scans and conventional impressions of edentulous jaws: A clinical study.
Lo Russo L; Caradonna G; Troiano G; Salamini A; Guida L; Ciavarella D
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Feb; 123(2):264-268. PubMed ID: 31153614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Atraumatic intraoral scans and virtual hybrid casts for custom implant abutments and zirconia implants: Accuracy of the workflow.
Schubert O; Edelhoff D; Schweiger J; Güth JF
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jun; 129(6):920-929. PubMed ID: 34598772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An in vitro study.
Ke Y; Zhang Y; Wang Y; Chen H; Sun Y
J Dent; 2023 Aug; 135():104561. PubMed ID: 37236297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. In-vitro accuracy of casts for orthodontic purposes obtained by a conventional and by a printer workflow.
Reich S; Herstell H; Raith S; Kühne C; Berndt S
PLoS One; 2023; 18(3):e0282840. PubMed ID: 36920945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison.
Keul C; Güth JF
Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Feb; 24(2):735-745. PubMed ID: 31134345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery in 25 Edentulous Arches: A Laboratory Observational Study.
Ben Yehuda D; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Sicilia E; Muftu A; Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P
J Prosthodont; 2020 Oct; 29(8):718-724. PubMed ID: 32648318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Trueness and Precision Achieved With Conventional and Digital Implant Impressions: A Comparative Investigation of Stone Versus 3-D Printed Master Casts.
Mathey A; Brägger U; Joda T
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2021 Aug; 29(3):. PubMed ID: 33508182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Impact of internal design on the accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed casts fabricated by stereolithography and digital light processing technology.
Chen Y; Li H; Zhai Z; Nakano T; Ishigaki S
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Sep; 130(3):381.e1-381.e7. PubMed ID: 37482533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
