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 *

178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33475827)

  • 41. [Effects of pressure steam sterilization times on the accuracy of the digital intraoral scanning data].
    Xi Q; Chen X; Zhan X; Zhu J; Wu GF
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2021 May; 56(5):474-478. PubMed ID: 33904283
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine.
    Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. 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]  

  • 44. 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]  

  • 45. In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions.
    Rutkunas V; Gedrimiene A; Akulauskas M; Fehmer V; Sailer I; Jegelevicius D
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2021 Dec; 32(12):1444-1454. PubMed ID: 34543478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Elastic deformation of the mandibular jaw revisited-a clinical comparison between digital and conventional impressions using a reference.
    Schmidt A; Klussmann L; Schlenz MA; Wöstmann B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Jul; 25(7):4635-4642. PubMed ID: 33442777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis: A clinical study.
    Fu XJ; Liu M; Liu BL; Tonetti MS; Shi JY; Lai HC
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2024 Aug; 35(8):830-840. PubMed ID: 37746813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Effect of scan substrates on accuracy of 7 intraoral digital impression systems using human maxilla model.
    Bocklet C; Renne W; Mennito A; Bacro T; Latham J; Evans Z; Ludlow M; Kelly A; Nash J
    Orthod Craniofac Res; 2019 May; 22 Suppl 1():168-174. PubMed ID: 31074138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Use of Intraoral Scanners for Full Dental Arches: Could Different Strategies or Overlapping Software Affect Accuracy?
    Stefanelli LV; Franchina A; Pranno A; Pellegrino G; Ferri A; Pranno N; Di Carlo S; De Angelis F
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 Sep; 18(19):. PubMed ID: 34639250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation.
    Kim RJ; Park JM; Shim JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):895-903.e1. PubMed ID: 30006228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Deviations in palatal region between indirect and direct digital models: an in vivo study.
    Zhongpeng Y; Tianmin X; Ruoping J
    BMC Oral Health; 2019 Apr; 19(1):66. PubMed ID: 31029133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Digital versus conventional full-arch impressions in linear and 3D accuracy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies.
    Kong L; Li Y; Liu Z
    Clin Oral Investig; 2022 Sep; 26(9):5625-5642. PubMed ID: 35786783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner.
    Müller P; Ender A; Joda T; Katsoulis J
    Quintessence Int; 2016 Apr; 47(4):343-9. PubMed ID: 26824085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: A comparative in vitro study.
    Braian M; Wennerberg A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Aug; 122(2):129-136.e2. PubMed ID: 30885584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study.
    Aboujaoude R; Kmeid R; Gebrael C; Amm E
    Prog Orthod; 2022 Sep; 23(1):31. PubMed ID: 36058991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. 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]  

  • 57. Trueness evaluation of digital impression: The impact of the selection of reference and test object.
    Yatmaz BB; Raith S; Reich S
    J Dent; 2021 Aug; 111():103706. PubMed ID: 34077800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method.
    Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Nyström I; Rydén J; Thor A
    J Dent; 2018 Feb; 69():110-118. PubMed ID: 29246490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Evaluating the Effect of Ambient and Scanning Lights on the Trueness of the Intraoral Scanner.
    Koseoglu M; Kahramanoglu E; Akin H
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Dec; 30(9):811-816. PubMed ID: 33533100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. 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]  

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