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 *

212 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33533132)

  • 1. Effect of Impression Technique and Operator Experience on Impression Time and Operator-Reported Outcomes.
    Yilmaz H; Eglenen MN; Cakmak G; Yilmaz B
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Oct; 30(8):676-683. PubMed ID: 33533132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions.
    Lee SJ; Macarthur RX; Gallucci GO
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Nov; 110(5):420-3. PubMed ID: 23998623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction.
    Burzynski JA; Firestone AR; Beck FM; Fields HW; Deguchi T
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Apr; 153(4):534-541. PubMed ID: 29602345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes.
    Yuzbasioglu E; Kurt H; Turunc R; Bilir H
    BMC Oral Health; 2014 Jan; 14():10. PubMed ID: 24479892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans.
    Resende CCD; Barbosa TAQ; Moura GF; Tavares LDN; Rizzante FAP; George FM; Neves FDD; Mendonça G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Feb; 125(2):294-299. PubMed ID: 32115221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An Updated Comparison of Current Impression Techniques Regarding Time, Comfort, Anxiety, and Preference: A Randomized Crossover Trial.
    Yilmaz H; Konca FA; Aydin MN
    Turk J Orthod; 2021 Dec; 34(4):227-233. PubMed ID: 35110223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of patient experience, chair-side time, accuracy of dental arch measurements and costs of acquisition of dental models.
    Glisic O; Hoejbjerre L; Sonnesen L
    Angle Orthod; 2019 Nov; 89(6):868-875. PubMed ID: 31259615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Students' perspectives on the use of digital versus conventional dental impression techniques in orthodontics.
    Schott TC; Arsalan R; Weimer K
    BMC Med Educ; 2019 Mar; 19(1):81. PubMed ID: 30866910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Influence of age, training, intraoral scanner, and software version on the scan accuracy of inexperienced operators.
    Zarauz C; Pradíes GJ; Chebib N; Dönmez MB; Karasan D; Sailer I
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Dec; 32(S2):135-141. PubMed ID: 37837217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Digital versus conventional impression method in children: Comfort, preference and time.
    Yilmaz H; Aydin MN
    Int J Paediatr Dent; 2019 Nov; 29(6):728-735. PubMed ID: 31348834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients.
    Burhardt L; Livas C; Kerdijk W; van der Meer WJ; Ren Y
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2016 Aug; 150(2):261-7. PubMed ID: 27476358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial.
    Joda T; Lenherr P; Dedem P; Kovaltschuk I; Bragger U; Zitzmann NU
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Oct; 28(10):1318-1323. PubMed ID: 27596805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Dental Students' Perceptions of Digital and Conventional Impression Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Zitzmann NU; Kovaltschuk I; Lenherr P; Dedem P; Joda T
    J Dent Educ; 2017 Oct; 81(10):1227-1232. PubMed ID: 28966188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference.
    Schepke U; Meijer HJ; Kerdijk W; Cune MS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Sep; 114(3):403-6.e1. PubMed ID: 26047800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes.
    Lee SJ; Gallucci GO
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Jan; 24(1):111-5. PubMed ID: 22353208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Limited evidence suggests complete arch digital scans are less time efficient than conventional impression.
    Sedky A; Abd-Elwahab Radi I
    Evid Based Dent; 2020 Dec; 21(4):138-139. PubMed ID: 33339976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A clinical study comparing digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported prostheses: A crossover clinical trial.
    Lee SJ; Jamjoom FZ; Le T; Radics A; Gallucci GO
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Jul; 128(1):42-48. PubMed ID: 33602542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions.
    Sailer I; Mühlemann S; Fehmer V; Hämmerle CHF; Benic GI
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Jan; 121(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 30017152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The dentist will scan you now: The next generation of digital-savvy graduates.
    Cheah C; Lim C; Ma S
    Eur J Dent Educ; 2021 May; 25(2):232-237. PubMed ID: 32815610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance.
    Grünheid T; McCarthy SD; Larson BE
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2014 Nov; 146(5):673-82. PubMed ID: 25439218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.