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 *

203 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33148226)

  • 1. Evaluation of the quality of fixed prosthesis impressions in private laboratories in a sample from Yemen.
    Al-Odinee NM; Al-Hamzi M; Al-Shami IZ; Madfa A; Al-Kholani AI; Al-Olofi YM
    BMC Oral Health; 2020 Nov; 20(1):304. PubMed ID: 33148226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A clinical evaluation of fixed partial denture impressions.
    Samet N; Shohat M; Livny A; Weiss EI
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Aug; 94(2):112-7. PubMed ID: 16046964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The quality of fixed prosthodontic impressions: An assessment of crown and bridge impressions received at commercial laboratories.
    Rau CT; Olafsson VG; Delgado AJ; Ritter AV; Donovan TE
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2017 Sep; 148(9):654-660. PubMed ID: 28601188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Assessing the quality of clinical procedures and technical standards of dental laboratories in fixed partial denture therapy.
    Albashaireh ZS; Alnegrish AS
    Int J Prosthodont; 1999; 12(3):236-41. PubMed ID: 10635191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays.
    Johnson GH; Mancl LA; Schwedhelm ER; Verhoef DR; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Jan; 103(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 20105676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A preliminary survey of impression trays used in the fabrication of fixed indirect restorations.
    Mitchell ST; Ramp MH; Ramp LC; Liu PR
    J Prosthodont; 2009 Oct; 18(7):582-8. PubMed ID: 19523024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effect of different impression techniques on the dimensional accuracy of impressions using various elastomeric impression materials: an in vitro study.
    Singh K; Sahoo S; Prasad KD; Goel M; Singh A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Jan; 13(1):98-106. PubMed ID: 22430701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The influence of tray space and repeat pours on the accuracy of monophasic polyvinylsiloxane impression.
    Rajapur A; Dixit S; Hoshing C; Raikar SP
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Nov; 13(6):824-9. PubMed ID: 23404010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. The quality of impressions for crowns and bridges: an assessment of the work received at three commercial dental laboratories. assessing qualities of impressions that may lead to occlusal discrepancies with indirect restorations.
    Storey D; Coward TJ
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2014 Mar; 22(1):11-8. PubMed ID: 24922994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Impressions in implant dentistry.
    Bhakta S; Vere J; Calder I; Patel R
    Br Dent J; 2011 Oct; 211(8):361-7. PubMed ID: 22015512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy of implant impressions with different impression coping types and shapes.
    Rashidan N; Alikhasi M; Samadizadeh S; Beyabanaki E; Kharazifard MJ
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 Apr; 14(2):218-25. PubMed ID: 19804420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effect of tray selection on the accuracy of elastomeric impression materials.
    Gordon GE; Johnson GH; Drennon DG
    J Prosthet Dent; 1990 Jan; 63(1):12-5. PubMed ID: 2404101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Accuracy of complete-arch implant impression made with occlusal registration material.
    Papazoglou E; Wee AG; Carr AB; Urban I; Margaritis V
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):143-148. PubMed ID: 31079882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The quality of impressions for crowns and bridges: an assessment of the work received at three commercial dental laboratories. assessing the quality of the impressions of prepared teeth.
    Storey D; Coward TJ
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2013 Jun; 21(2):53-7. PubMed ID: 23888527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quality of impressions using hydrophilic polyvinyl siloxane in a clinical study of 249 patients.
    Beier US; Grunert I; Kulmer S; Dumfahrt H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2007; 20(3):270-4. PubMed ID: 17580459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.