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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32639701)

  • 21. Accuracy of the newly formulated vinyl siloxanether elastomeric impression material.
    Stober T; Johnson GH; Schmitter M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Apr; 103(4):228-39. PubMed ID: 20362766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques.
    Malik J; Rodriguez J; Weisbloom M; Petridis H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(2):107-113. PubMed ID: 29518805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions.
    Ender A; Attin T; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Mar; 115(3):313-20. PubMed ID: 26548890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses.
    Vigolo P; Fonzi F; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2004 Nov; 92(5):470-6. PubMed ID: 15523336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit.
    Papaspyridakos P; Hirayama H; Chen CJ; Ho CH; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Sep; 27(9):1099-105. PubMed ID: 26374268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A Comparative Evaluation of the Linear Dimensional Accuracy of Four Impression Techniques using Polyether Impression Material.
    Manoj SS; Cherian KP; Chitre V; Aras M
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2013 Dec; 13(4):428-38. PubMed ID: 24431772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Accuracy of a new elastomeric impression material for complete-arch dental implant impressions.
    Baig MR; Buzayan MM; Yunus N
    J Investig Clin Dent; 2018 May; 9(2):e12320. PubMed ID: 29349910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Accuracy of newly formulated fast-setting elastomeric impression materials.
    Wadhwani CP; Johnson GH; Lepe X; Raigrodski AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Jun; 93(6):530-9. PubMed ID: 15942613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time.
    Thongthammachat S; Moore BK; Barco MT; Hovijitra S; Brown DT; Andres CJ
    J Prosthodont; 2002 Jun; 11(2):98-108. PubMed ID: 12087547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Local accuracy of actual intraoral scanning systems for single-tooth preparations in vitro.
    Zimmermann M; Ender A; Mehl A
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2020 Feb; 151(2):127-135. PubMed ID: 31883705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type.
    Kim JH; Son SA; Lee H; Kim RJ; Park JK
    J Prosthodont Res; 2021 Aug; 65(3):400-406. PubMed ID: 33116030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Accuracy of impressions and casts using different implant impression techniques in a multi-implant system with an internal hex connection.
    Wenz HJ; Hertrampf K
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(1):39-47. PubMed ID: 18416411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients.
    Kuhr F; Schmidt A; Rehmann P; Wöstmann B
    J Dent; 2016 Dec; 55():68-74. PubMed ID: 27717754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner.
    Mennito AS; Evans ZP; Nash J; Bocklet C; Lauer Kelly A; Bacro T; Cayouette M; Ludlow M; Renne WG
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2019 Jul; 31(4):369-377. PubMed ID: 31058428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Accuracy of successive casts for full-arch fixed prostheses.
    Dounis KS; Dounis G; Ditmyer MM; Ziebert GJ
    Int J Prosthodont; 2010; 23(5):446-9. PubMed ID: 20859561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Qualitative and quantitative three-dimensional accuracy of a single tooth captured by elastomeric impression materials: an in vitro study.
    Schaefer O; Schmidt M; Goebel R; Kuepper H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Sep; 108(3):165-72. PubMed ID: 22944312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions.
    Wee AG
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Mar; 83(3):323-31. PubMed ID: 10709042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Photogrammetry and conventional impressions for recording implant positions: a comparative laboratory study.
    Ortorp A; Jemt T; Bäck T
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2005; 7(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15903174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Performance of fast-setting impression materials in the reproduction of subgingival tooth surfaces without soft tissue retraction.
    Rudolph H; Röhl A; Walter MH; Luthardt RG; Quaas S
    Int J Prosthodont; 2014; 27(4):366-75. PubMed ID: 25010882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.