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 *

279 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33602542)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Crown Accuracy and Time Efficiency of Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Restorations in a Complete Digital Workflow: A Randomized Control Trial.
    Ren S; Jiang X; Lin Y; Di P
    J Prosthodont; 2022 Jun; 31(5):405-411. PubMed ID: 34748653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.
    Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Accuracy and Efficiency of Digitally Fabricated All-Ceramic Crowns from Conventional Impressions and Intraoral Scans: A Single-Blind Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Liu X; Feng K; Dong L; Liu L; Ni L; Zheng D
    Int J Prosthodont; 2024 Feb; 37(1):8-15. PubMed ID: 36484666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Different implant impression techniques for edentulous patients treated with CAD/CAM complete-arch prostheses: a randomised controlled trial reporting data at 3 year post-loading.
    Pozzi A; Tallarico M; Mangani F; Barlattani A
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2013; 6(4):325-40. PubMed ID: 24570979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners.
    Abdel-Azim T; Rogers K; Elathamna E; Zandinejad A; Metz M; Morton D
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):554-9. PubMed ID: 26100929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part II: CAD-CAM versus conventional laboratory procedures.
    Sailer I; Benic GI; Fehmer V; Hämmerle CHF; Mühlemann S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Jul; 118(1):43-48. PubMed ID: 28024819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.
    Anadioti E; Aquilino SA; Gratton DG; Holloway JA; Denry I; Thomas GW; Qian F
    J Prosthodont; 2014 Dec; 23(8):610-7. PubMed ID: 24995593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study.
    Lin WS; Harris BT; Elathamna EN; Abdel-Azim T; Morton D
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(1):102-9. PubMed ID: 25615919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Flügge T; van der Meer WJ; Gonzalez BG; Vach K; Wismeijer D; Wang P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():374-392. PubMed ID: 30328182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated from conventional and digital impressions assessed with micro-CT.
    Kim JH; Jeong JH; Lee JH; Cho HW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Oct; 116(4):551-557. PubMed ID: 27422237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Randomized Clinical Trial comparing clinical adjustment times of CAD/CAM screw-retained posterior crowns on ti-base abutments created with digital or conventional impressions. One-year follow-up.
    Derksen W; Tahmaseb A; Wismeijer D
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2021 Aug; 32(8):962-970. PubMed ID: 34080238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Time efficiency and quality of outcomes in a model-free digital workflow using digital impression immediately after implant placement: A double-blind self-controlled clinical trial.
    Pan S; Guo D; Zhou Y; Jung RE; Hämmerle CHF; Mühlemann S
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2019 Jul; 30(7):617-626. PubMed ID: 31021451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial.
    Ahrberg D; Lauer HC; Ahrberg M; Weigl P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Mar; 20(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 26070435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions.
    Lee SJ; Betensky RA; Gianneschi GE; Gallucci GO
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2015 Jun; 26(6):715-9. PubMed ID: 24720423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods.
    Cho SH; Schaefer O; Thompson GA; Guentsch A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Apr; 113(4):310-5. PubMed ID: 25682531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of impression scanning compared with stone casts of implant impressions.
    Matta RE; Adler W; Wichmann M; Heckmann SM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Apr; 117(4):507-512. PubMed ID: 27881327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study.
    Alkindi S; Hamdoon Z; Aziz AM
    J Dent; 2024 Jul; 146():105045. PubMed ID: 38714241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.