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 *

102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33469983)

  • 1. A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method.
    Schmidt A; Rein PE; Wöstmann B; Schlenz MA
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2021 Apr; 32(4):460-469. PubMed ID: 33469983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 3D Accuracy of a Conventional Method Versus Three Digital Scanning Strategies for Completely Edentulous Maxillary Implant Impressions.
    Blanco-Plard A; Hernandez A; Pino F; Vargas N; Rivas-Tumanyan S; Elias A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2023 Dec; 38(6):1211-1219. PubMed ID: 38085753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry.
    Cheng J; Zhang H; Liu H; Li J; Wang HL; Tao X
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2024 May; 35(5):560-572. PubMed ID: 38421115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Influence of intraoral scanning coverage on the accuracy of digital implant impressions - An in vitro study.
    Wang ZY; Gong Y; Liu F; Chen D; Zheng JW; Shen JF
    J Dent; 2024 Apr; 143():104929. PubMed ID: 38458380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of photogrammetric imaging versus conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A comparative clinical study.
    Zhang YJ; Qian SJ; Lai HC; Shi JY
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Aug; 130(2):212-218. PubMed ID: 34776266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of conventional impressions versus digital scans for the all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch: An in vitro study.
    Marshaha NJ; Azhari AA; Assery MK; Ahmed WM
    J Prosthodont; 2024 Feb; 33(2):171-179. PubMed ID: 36811911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An in vitro study.
    El Osta N; Drancourt N; Auduc C; Veyrune JL; Nicolas E
    J Dent; 2024 Apr; 143():104892. PubMed ID: 38367825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review.
    Michelinakis G; Apostolakis D; Kamposiora P; Papavasiliou G; Özcan M
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Jan; 21(1):37. PubMed ID: 33478459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effect of artificial landmarks of the prefabricated auxiliary devices located at different arch positions on the accuracy of complete-arch edentulous digital implant scanning: An in-vitro study.
    Wu HK; Chen G; Zhang Z; Lin X; Huang X; Deng F; Li Y
    J Dent; 2024 Jan; 140():104802. PubMed ID: 38072336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Intraoral optical impression versus conventional impression for fully edentulous maxilla: an in vivo comparative study.
    Willmann C; Deschamps A; Taddei-Gross C; Musset AM; Lai C; Etienne O
    Int J Comput Dent; 2024 Mar; 27(1):19-26. PubMed ID: 36815624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Chairside 3-D printed impression trays: a new approach to increase the accuracy of conventional implant impression taking? An in vitro study.
    Schmidt A; Berschin C; Wöstmann B; Schlenz MA
    Int J Implant Dent; 2023 Dec; 9(1):47. PubMed ID: 38052992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy of intraoral scanning versus conventional impressions for partial edentulous patients with maxillary defects.
    Cao R; Zhang S; Li L; Qiu P; Xu H; Cao Y
    Sci Rep; 2023 Oct; 13(1):16773. PubMed ID: 37798354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Influence of titanium dioxide and composite on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner for bilateral upper posterior edentulous jaw (Kennedy class I) scanning: An in vitro study.
    Vo HM; Huynh NC; Tran TT; Hoang HT; Nguyen AT
    J Dent; 2023 Dec; 139():104747. PubMed ID: 37863172
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillary full-arch screw-retained prosthesis: A crossover randomized trial.
    Jasim AG; Abo Elezz MG; Altonbary GY; Elsyad MA
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2024 May; ():. PubMed ID: 38727015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A guide for selecting the intraoral scan extension when fabricating tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.
    Revilla-León M; Gómez-Polo M; Kois JC
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Jan; 36(1):85-93. PubMed ID: 37789708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital implant impression techniques in bilateral distal extension cases: a randomized clinical trial.
    Elashry WY; Elsheikh MM; Elsheikh AM
    BMC Oral Health; 2024 Jul; 24(1):764. PubMed ID: 38970004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Research progress on accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for implant-supported full-arch prostheses.
    Zhu J; Zhao K; Gu X
    Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2024 Jun; ():1-9. PubMed ID: 38832462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Use of the universal scan template to achieve a predictable optical impression: Preliminary data of a case series study in complete edentulous patients.
    Campana V; Papa A; Silvetti MA; Del Fabbro M; Testori T
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2024 Feb; 26(1):237-244. PubMed ID: 37965745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of digital impressions versus conventional impressions for 2 implants: an in vitro study evaluating the effect of implant angulation.
    Abduo J; Palamara JEA
    Int J Implant Dent; 2021 Jul; 7(1):75. PubMed ID: 34327601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of 3D accuracy of three different digital intraoral scanners in full-arch implant impressions.
    Akkal O; Korkmaz IH; Bayindir F
    J Adv Prosthodont; 2023 Aug; 15(4):179-188. PubMed ID: 37662853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.