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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32173362)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible.
    Hayama H; Fueki K; Wadachi J; Wakabayashi N
    J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Jul; 62(3):347-352. PubMed ID: 29502933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A Novel Method to Evaluate Precision of Optical Implant Impressions with Commercial Scan Bodies-An Experimental Approach.
    Fluegge T; Att W; Metzger M; Nelson K
    J Prosthodont; 2017 Jan; 26(1):34-41. PubMed ID: 26466158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.
    Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Fit of implant-supported fixed prostheses fabricated on master casts made from a dental stone and a dental plaster.
    Wise M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Nov; 86(5):532-8. PubMed ID: 11725282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Effect of dental technician disparities on the 3-dimensional accuracy of definitive casts.
    Emir F; Piskin B; Sipahi C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Mar; 117(3):410-418. PubMed ID: 27677213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows.
    Sim JY; Jang Y; Kim WC; Kim HY; Lee DH; Kim JH
    J Prosthodont Res; 2019 Jan; 63(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 29615324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions.
    Vigolo P; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):186-92. PubMed ID: 12616240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Generation and evaluation of 3D digital casts of maxillary defects based on multisource data registration: A pilot clinical study.
    Ye H; Ma Q; Hou Y; Li M; Zhou Y
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Dec; 118(6):790-795. PubMed ID: 28449864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods.
    Cho SH; Schaefer O; Thompson GA; Guentsch A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Apr; 113(4):310-5. PubMed ID: 25682531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained from Intraoral and Extraoral Dental Scanners with Different CAD/CAM Scanning Technologies: An In Vitro Study.
    Ellakany P; Tantawi ME; Mahrous AA; Al-Harbi F
    J Prosthodont; 2022 Apr; 31(4):314-319. PubMed ID: 34085355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Accuracy of impression scanning compared with stone casts of implant impressions.
    Matta RE; Adler W; Wichmann M; Heckmann SM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Apr; 117(4):507-512. PubMed ID: 27881327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Accuracy of Three Digitization Methods for the Dental Arch with Various Tooth Preparation Designs: An In Vitro Study.
    Oh KC; Lee B; Park YB; Moon HS
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):195-201. PubMed ID: 30427097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Exploring a new method for superimposition of pre-treatment and post-treatment mandibular digital dental casts in adults].
    Dai FF; Liu Y; Xu TM; Chen G
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2018 Apr; 50(2):271-278. PubMed ID: 29643526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.