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.
129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32639701)
1. Accuracy of a New Fast-Setting Polyether Impression Material. Zenthöfer A; Rues S; Rammelsberg P; Ruckes D; Stober T Int J Prosthodont; 2020; 33(4):410-417. PubMed ID: 32639701 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Disposable plastic trays and their effect on polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impression accuracy-an in vitro study. Rues S; Stober T; Bargum T; Rammelsberg P; Zenthöfer A Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Mar; 25(3):1475-1484. PubMed ID: 32885321 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Accuracy of polyether and vinylpolysiloxane impressions when using different types of 3D-printed impression trays - an in vitro study. Rues S; Depré D; Stober T; Rammelsberg P; Zenthöfer A Clin Oral Investig; 2024 Sep; 28(10):560. PubMed ID: 39347818 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions. Carbajal Mejía JB; Wakabayashi K; Nakamura T; Yatani H J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):392-399. PubMed ID: 28222873 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans based on confocal microscopy versus optical triangulation: A comparative in vitro study. Waldecker M; Rues S; Rammelsberg P; Bömicke W J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Sep; 126(3):414-420. PubMed ID: 32950254 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: an in vitro study. Caputi S; Varvara G J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Apr; 99(4):274-81. PubMed ID: 18395537 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dimensional Accuracy of Novel Vinyl Polysiloxane Compared with Polyether Impression Materials: An In Vitro Study. Waldecker M; Rues S; Rammelsberg P; Bömicke W Materials (Basel); 2024 Aug; 17(17):. PubMed ID: 39274611 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. A comparison of the accuracy of polyether, polyvinyl siloxane, and plaster impressions for long-span implant-supported prostheses. Hoods-Moonsammy VJ; Owen P; Howes DG Int J Prosthodont; 2014; 27(5):433-8. PubMed ID: 25191885 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of accuracy of complete-arch multiple-unit abutment-level dental implant impressions using different impression and splinting materials. Buzayan M; Baig MR; Yunus N Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(6):1512-20. PubMed ID: 24278919 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Fit of monolithic multilayer zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated by conventional versus digital impression: a clinical and laboratory investigations. Morsy N; El Kateb M; Azer A; Fathalla S Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Sep; 25(9):5363-5373. PubMed ID: 33619632 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Accuracy of digitization obtained from scannable and nonscannable elastomeric impression materials. García-Martínez I; CáceresMonllor D; Solaberrieta E; Ferreiroa A; Pradíes G J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Feb; 125(2):300-306. PubMed ID: 32089364 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy of Stone Models Fabricated by Three Different Impression Techniques Using Two Brands of Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression Materials. Garg S; Kumar S; Jain S; Aggarwal R; Choudhary S; Reddy NK J Contemp Dent Pract; 2019 Aug; 20(8):928-934. PubMed ID: 31797849 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Flügge TV; Schlager S; Nelson K; Nahles S; Metzger MC Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Sep; 144(3):471-8. PubMed ID: 23992820 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions. Ceyhan JA; Johnson GH; Lepe X J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Aug; 90(2):143-9. PubMed ID: 12886207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Ender A; Mehl A Quintessence Int; 2015 Jan; 46(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 25019118 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Clinical acceptance of single-unit crowns and its association with impression and tissue displacement techniques: Findings from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Lawson NC; Litaker MS; Sowell E; Gordan VV; Mungia R; Ronzo KR; Lam BT; Gilbert GH; McCracken MS; J Prosthet Dent; 2020 May; 123(5):701-709. PubMed ID: 31590974 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]