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: 33610331)

  • 1. Fit of complete-arch implant-supported prostheses produced from an intraoral scan by using an auxiliary device and from an elastomeric impression: A pilot clinical trial.
    Roig E; Roig M; Garza LC; Costa S; Maia P; Espona J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):404-414. PubMed ID: 33610331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review.
    Michelinakis G; Apostolakis D; Kamposiora P; Papavasiliou G; Özcan M
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Jan; 21(1):37. PubMed ID: 33478459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Digital Workflow for Double Complete Arch Zirconia Prostheses Utilizing a Novel Scan Body.
    Marinis A; Papaspyridakos P; Sicilia E; Bernandes SR; Touloumi F; Chochlidakis K; Weber HP
    J Prosthodont; 2022 Jan; 31(1):4-8. PubMed ID: 34453373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques on the accuracy of fit of fixed implant prostheses in edentulous patients: a comparative study.
    Papaspyridakos P; Lal K; White GS; Weber HP; Gallucci GO
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(6):1267-72. PubMed ID: 22167432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study.
    Yan Y; Lin X; Yue X; Geng W
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Oct; 130(4):564-572. PubMed ID: 35667889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure.
    Menini M; Setti P; Pera F; Pera P; Pesce P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Apr; 22(3):1253-1262. PubMed ID: 28965251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Complete digital workflow for prosthesis prototype fabrication with double digital scanning: A retrospective study with 45 edentulous jaws.
    Papaspyridakos P; Vazouras K; Gotsis S; Bokhary A; Sicilia E; Kudara Y; Bedrossian A; Chochlidakis K
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Aug; 32(7):571-578. PubMed ID: 36527731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression.
    Kim KR; Seo KY; Kim S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Dec; 122(6):543-549. PubMed ID: 30955939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Clinical and laboratory passive fit assessment of implant-supported zirconia restorations fabricated using conventional and digital workflow.
    Rutkunas V; Larsson C; Vult von Steyern P; Mangano F; Gedrimiene A
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2020 Apr; 22(2):237-245. PubMed ID: 32026603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Altered reverse impression method involving extraoral digitalization of a verification jig for the fabrication of implant-supported prosthesis by using a complete-digital workflow.
    Rosmaninho A; Vedovato E; Kois JC; Revilla-León M
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Apr; 36(4):566-572. PubMed ID: 37882153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Merging intraoral scans and CBCT: a novel technique for improving the accuracy of 3D digital models for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses.
    Gómez-Polo M; Ballesteros J; Padilla PP; Pulido PP; Revilla-León M; Ortega R
    Int J Comput Dent; 2021 Jun; 24(2):117-123. PubMed ID: 34085497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy of complete-arch implant impression made with occlusal registration material.
    Papazoglou E; Wee AG; Carr AB; Urban I; Margaritis V
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):143-148. PubMed ID: 31079882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit.
    Papaspyridakos P; Hirayama H; Chen CJ; Ho CH; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Sep; 27(9):1099-105. PubMed ID: 26374268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Fit of zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Morsy N; El Kateb M; Azer A; Fathalla S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jul; 130(1):28-34. PubMed ID: 34696907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Solid index impression protocol: a hybrid workflow for high accuracy and passive fit of full-arch implant-supported restorations.
    Mandelli F; Zaetta A; Cucchi A; Mangano FG
    Int J Comput Dent; 2020; 23(2):161-181. PubMed ID: 32555769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.