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 *

230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33550343)

  • 21. Influence of definitive and interim restorative materials and surface finishing on the scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner.
    Revilla-León M; Young K; Sicilia E; Cho SH; Kois JC
    J Dent; 2022 May; 120():104114. PubMed ID: 35358659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners.
    Latham J; Ludlow M; Mennito A; Kelly A; Evans Z; Renne W
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):85-95. PubMed ID: 30982616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Effect of printing layer thickness on the trueness and fit of additively manufactured removable dies.
    Yilmaz B; Donmez MB; Kahveci Ç; Cuellar AR; de Paula MS; Schimmel M; Abou-Ayash S; Çakmak G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Dec; 128(6):1318.e1-1318.e9. PubMed ID: 36435670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A comparative study assessing the precision and trueness of digital and printed casts produced from several intraoral and extraoral scanners in full arch and short span (3-unit FPD) scanning: An in vitro study.
    Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Jun; 32(5):423-430. PubMed ID: 35852379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Trueness of Crown Preparation Dies in Dental Models: An In Vitro Assessment of Digital and Analog Workflows.
    Auskalnis L; Akulauskas M; Jegelevicius D; Rutkunas V
    Int J Prosthodont; 2024 Feb; 37(7):89-98. PubMed ID: 38498861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An
    Shaikh M; Lakha T; Kheur S; Qamri B; Kheur M
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2022; 22(4):398-404. PubMed ID: 36511075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners.
    Lee JJ; Jeong ID; Park JY; Jeon JH; Kim JH; Kim WC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Feb; 117(2):253-259. PubMed ID: 27666500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans based on confocal microscopy versus optical triangulation: A comparative in vitro study.
    Waldecker M; Rues S; Rammelsberg P; Bömicke W
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Sep; 126(3):414-420. PubMed ID: 32950254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence.
    Diker B; Tak Ö
    Int J Prosthodont; 2021; 34(1):101-108. PubMed ID: 33570525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of intraoral digital impressions for obtaining gingival contour in the esthetic zone: accuracy outcomes.
    Wei D; Di P; Tian J; Zhao Y; Lin Y
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Apr; 24(4):1401-1410. PubMed ID: 31754870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Influence of Preparation Type and Tooth Geometry on the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners.
    Ashraf Y; Sabet A; Hamdy A; Ebeid K
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Dec; 29(9):800-804. PubMed ID: 32406156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Trueness of intraoral scanners in digitizing specific locations at the margin and intaglio surfaces of intracoronal preparations.
    Jin-Young Kim R; Benic GI; Park JM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Dec; 126(6):779-786. PubMed ID: 33176925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Evaluation of the accuracy of 2 digital intraoral scanners: A 3D analysis study.
    Alzahrani SJ; El-Hammali H; Morgano SM; Elkassaby H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Dec; 126(6):787-792. PubMed ID: 33172647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Time and Accuracy of the CEREC Omnicam Using Two Different Software Programs.
    Porr DA; Brooks DI; Liacouras PC; Petrich A; Ellert DO; Ye L
    J Prosthodont; 2022 Feb; 31(2):130-135. PubMed ID: 33851748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters.
    Chiu A; Chen YW; Hayashi J; Sadr A
    Sensors (Basel); 2020 Feb; 20(4):. PubMed ID: 32093174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Accuracy analysis of full-arch implant digital impressions when using a geometric feature].
    Ke YF; Zhang YP; Chen JK; Chen H; Wang Y; Sun YC
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2022 Feb; 57(2):162-167. PubMed ID: 35152652
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners.
    Treesh JC; Liacouras PC; Taft RM; Brooks DI; Raiciulescu S; Ellert DO; Grant GT; Ye L
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):382-388. PubMed ID: 29724554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions.
    Albayrak B; Sukotjo C; Wee AG; Korkmaz İH; Bayındır F
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Feb; 30(2):163-170. PubMed ID: 32935894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Influence of Repeated Cut-off and Rescanning on the Trueness of the Intraoral Digital Scans.
    Guo J; Lu Y; Li R; Zhou K; Ge R; Zhao D; Xia S; Wang Y
    J Dent; 2024 Jun; ():105153. PubMed ID: 38914183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.