472 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33583617)
1. Accuracy of impression-making methods in edentulous arches: An in vitro study encompassing conventional and digital methods.
Li J; Moon HS; Kim JH; Yoon HI; Oh KC
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):479-486. PubMed ID: 33583617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Impact of intraoral scanner, scanning strategy, and scanned arch on the scan accuracy of edentulous arches: An in vitro study.
Jamjoom FZ; Aldghim A; Aldibasi O; Yilmaz B
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jun; 131(6):1218-1225. PubMed ID: 36841708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Accuracy of three digital scanning methods for complete-arch tooth preparation: An in vitro comparison.
Gao H; Liu X; Liu M; Yang X; Tan J
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1001-1008. PubMed ID: 33736864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. In vitro evaluation of the impact of intraoral scanner, scanning aids, and the scanned arch on the scan accuracy of edentulous arches.
Jamjoom FZ; Aldghim A; Aldibasi O; Yilmaz B
J Prosthodont; 2024 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 38953541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques.
Lyu M; Di P; Lin Y; Jiang X
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1017-1023. PubMed ID: 33640093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Influence of scan technology on the accuracy and speed of intraoral scanning systems for the edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study.
Osman RB; Alharbi NM
J Prosthodont; 2023 Dec; 32(9):821-828. PubMed ID: 36571837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Understanding the effect of scan spans on the accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners.
Chen Y; Zhai Z; Watanabe S; Nakano T; Ishigaki S
J Dent; 2022 Sep; 124():104220. PubMed ID: 35817227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of additional reference objects on accuracy of five intraoral scanners in partially and completely edentulous jaws: An in vitro study.
Rutkūnas V; Gedrimienė A; Al-Haj Husain N; Pletkus J; Barauskis D; Jegelevičius D; Özcan M
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jul; 130(1):111-118. PubMed ID: 34799084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Accuracy of a chairside intraoral scanner compared with a laboratory scanner for the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro 3-dimensional comparative analysis.
Zarone F; Ruggiero G; Ferrari M; Mangano F; Joda T; Sorrentino R
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Dec; 124(6):761.e1-761.e7. PubMed ID: 33289647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.
Ender A; Zimmermann M; Mehl A
Int J Comput Dent; 2019; 22(1):11-19. PubMed ID: 30848250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Positional trueness of abutments by using a digital die-merging protocol compared with complete arch direct digital scans and conventional dental impressions.
Jelicich A; Scialabba R; Lee SJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Feb; 131(2):293-300. PubMed ID: 35430047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Three-dimensional differences between intraoral scans and conventional impressions of edentulous jaws: A clinical study.
Lo Russo L; Caradonna G; Troiano G; Salamini A; Guida L; Ciavarella D
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Feb; 123(2):264-268. PubMed ID: 31153614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch.
Tan MY; Yee SHX; Wong KM; Tan YH; Tan KBC
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(2):366–380. PubMed ID: 30521661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance.
Atieh MA; Ritter AV; Ko CC; Duqum I
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):400-405. PubMed ID: 28222869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison.
Keul C; Güth JF
Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Feb; 24(2):735-745. PubMed ID: 31134345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Accuracy of six intraoral scanners for scanning complete-arch and 4-unit fixed partial dentures: An in vitro study.
Diker B; Tak Ö
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Aug; 128(2):187-194. PubMed ID: 33558056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Trueness of intraoral scanning of edentulous arches: A comparative clinical study.
Al Hamad KQ; Al-Kaff FT
J Prosthodont; 2023 Jan; 32(1):26-31. PubMed ID: 35997079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [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]
[Next] [New Search]
