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 *

162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32567126)

  • 21. Accuracy of multi-implant impressions using 3D-printing custom trays and splinting versus conventional techniques for complete arches.
    Liu Y; Di P; Zhao Y; Hao Q; Tian J; Cui H
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(4):1007–1014. PubMed ID: 31107937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth.
    Giménez B; Özcan M; Martínez-Rus F; Pradíes G
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2015 Jan; 17 Suppl 1():e54-64. PubMed ID: 23879869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A fully digital approach to replicate functional and aesthetic parameters in implant-supported full-arch rehabilitation.
    Monaco C; Ragazzini N; Scheda L; Evangelisti E
    J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Jul; 62(3):383-385. PubMed ID: 29191608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Precision and Accuracy of a Digital Impression Scanner in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation.
    Pesce P; Pera F; Setti P; Menini M
    Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(2):171-175. PubMed ID: 29518813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study.
    Lee H; Ercoli C; Funkenbusch PD; Feng C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):107-13. PubMed ID: 18262011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Accuracy of 3D printed scan bodies for dental implants using two additive manufacturing systems: An in vitro study.
    Hopfensperger LJ; Talmazov G; Ammoun R; Brenes C; Bencharit S
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(4):e0283305. PubMed ID: 37027404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters.
    Giménez B; Pradíes G; Martínez-Rus F; Özcan M
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(1):56-64. PubMed ID: 25615916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.
    Marghalani A; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Kudara Y; El Rafie K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579. PubMed ID: 28927923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Verification jig for implant-supported prostheses: A comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials.
    De La Cruz JE; Funkenbusch PD; Ercoli C; Moss ME; Graser GN; Tallents RH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Sep; 88(3):329-36. PubMed ID: 12426505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Intaglio Surface Dimension and Guide Tube Deviations of Implant Surgical Guides Influenced by Printing Layer Thickness and Angulation Setting.
    Dalal N; Ammoun R; Abdulmajeed AA; Deeb GR; Bencharit S
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Feb; 29(2):161-165. PubMed ID: 31886914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure.
    Menini M; Setti P; Pera F; Pera P; Pesce P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Apr; 22(3):1253-1262. PubMed ID: 28965251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Reproducibility of laboratory scanning of multiple implants in complete edentulous arch: Effect of scan bodies.
    Pan Y; Tam JMY; Tsoi JKH; Lam WYH; Pow EHN
    J Dent; 2020 May; 96():103329. PubMed ID: 32251696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: Effects of Different Scanners and Implant Level.
    Chew AA; Esguerra RJ; Teoh KH; Wong KM; Ng SD; Tan KB
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2017; 32(1):70-80. PubMed ID: 27706264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Influence of scan body design on accuracy of the implant position as transferred to a virtual definitive implant cast.
    Revilla-León M; Smith Z; Methani MM; Zandinejad A; Özcan M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Jun; 125(6):918-923. PubMed ID: 32493568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study.
    Lin WS; Harris BT; Elathamna EN; Abdel-Azim T; Morton D
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(1):102-9. PubMed ID: 25615919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.