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.
400 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32093174)
21. Influence of Scanner Precision and Analysis Software in Quantifying Three-Dimensional Intraoral Changes: Two-Factor Factorial Experimental Design. O'Toole S; Bartlett D; Keeling A; McBride J; Bernabe E; Crins L; Loomans B J Med Internet Res; 2020 Nov; 22(11):e17150. PubMed ID: 33245280 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Nyström I; Thor A BMC Oral Health; 2018 Feb; 18(1):27. PubMed ID: 29471825 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Evaluation of the accuracy of 2 digital intraoral scanners: A 3D analysis study. Alzahrani SJ; El-Hammali H; Morgano SM; Elkassaby H J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Dec; 126(6):787-792. PubMed ID: 33172647 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch impressions between three different intraoral scanners and conventional impressions: A prospective in vivo study. Bhatia N; Muthuswamy Pandian S J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects; 2024; 18(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 38881640 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: A comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing. Wesemann C; Muallah J; Mah J; Bumann A Quintessence Int; 2017; 48(1):41-50. PubMed ID: 27834416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Evaluation of the fit of zirconia copings fabricated by direct and indirect digital scanning procedures. Lee B; Oh KC; Haam D; Lee JH; Moon HS J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):225-231. PubMed ID: 29428522 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions for Whole Upper Jaws, Including Full Dentitions and Palatal Soft Tissues. Gan N; Xiong Y; Jiao T PLoS One; 2016; 11(7):e0158800. PubMed ID: 27383409 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Marginal fit of zirconia copings fabricated after conventional impression making and digital scanning: An in vitro study. Carrilho Baltazar Vaz IM; Pimentel Coelho Lino Carracho JF J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Aug; 124(2):223.e1-223.e6. PubMed ID: 32336539 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Three-Dimensional Digital Evaluation of the Fit of Endocrowns Fabricated from Different CAD/CAM Materials. Zimmermann M; Valcanaia A; Neiva G; Mehl A; Fasbinder D J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):e504-e509. PubMed ID: 29508488 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Analysis of the impact of various finish line designs and occlusal morphologies on the accuracy of digital impressions. Gunel A; Guncu MB; Uzel SM; Aktas G; Arikan H; Reiss N; Turkyilmaz I J Dent Sci; 2023 Jul; 18(3):1264-1271. PubMed ID: 37404659 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Clinical evaluation of the effects of cutting off, overlapping, and rescanning procedures on intraoral scanning accuracy. Revilla-León M; Sicilia E; Agustín-Panadero R; Gómez-Polo M; Kois JC J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Nov; 130(5):746-754. PubMed ID: 34998582 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Berrendero S; Salido MP; Valverde A; Ferreiroa A; Pradíes G Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Dec; 20(9):2403-2410. PubMed ID: 26800669 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An Sason GK; Mistry G; Tabassum R; Shetty O J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2018; 18(2):108-116. PubMed ID: 29692563 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study. Vecsei B; Joós-Kovács G; Borbély J; Hermann P J Prosthodont Res; 2017 Apr; 61(2):177-184. PubMed ID: 27461088 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [Precision of digital impressions with TRIOS under simulated intraoral impression taking conditions]. Yang X; Sun YF; Tian L; Si WJ; Feng HL; Liu YH Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2015 Feb; 47(1):85-9. PubMed ID: 25686335 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Evaluation of marginal fit of CAD/CAM restorations fabricated through cone beam computerized tomography and laboratory scanner data. Şeker E; Ozcelik TB; Rathi N; Yilmaz B J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Jan; 115(1):47-51. PubMed ID: 26518986 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems. Mennito AS; Evans ZP; Lauer AW; Patel RB; Ludlow ME; Renne WG J Esthet Restor Dent; 2018 Mar; 30(2):113-118. PubMed ID: 29476599 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Trueness of Crown Preparation Dies in Dental Models: An In Vitro Assessment of Digital and Analog Workflows. Auskalnis L; Akulauskas M; Jegelevicius D; Rutkunas V Int J Prosthodont; 2024 Feb; 37(7):89-98. PubMed ID: 38498861 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]