485 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33640093)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of conventional impressions versus digital scans for the all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch: An in vitro study.
Marshaha NJ; Azhari AA; Assery MK; Ahmed WM
J Prosthodont; 2024 Feb; 33(2):171-179. PubMed ID: 36811911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study.
Ma B; Yue X; Sun Y; Peng L; Geng W
BMC Oral Health; 2021 Dec; 21(1):636. PubMed ID: 34893053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry.
Cheng J; Zhang H; Liu H; Li J; Wang HL; Tao X
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2024 May; 35(5):560-572. PubMed ID: 38421115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete arch-fixed prosthesis: An in vitro study.
Kosago P; Ungurawasaporn C; Kukiattrakoon B
J Prosthodont; 2023 Aug; 32(7):616-624. PubMed ID: 36083233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings.
Conejo J; Yoo TH; Atria PJ; Fraiman H; Blatz MB
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Mar; 131(3):475.e1-475.e7. PubMed ID: 38182453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An in vitro study.
Ke Y; Zhang Y; Wang Y; Chen H; Sun Y
J Dent; 2023 Aug; 135():104561. PubMed ID: 37236297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Digital vs Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Retrospective Analysis of 36 Edentulous Jaws.
Papaspyridakos P; De Souza A; Finkelman M; Sicilia E; Gotsis S; Chen YW; Vazouras K; Chochlidakis K
J Prosthodont; 2023 Apr; 32(4):325-330. PubMed ID: 35524647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effect of splinting scan bodies on the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans with 5 different intraoral scanners.
Azevedo L; Marques T; Karasan D; Fehmer V; Sailer I; Correia A; Gómez-Polo M
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jul; 132(1):204-210. PubMed ID: 37537105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.
Amin S; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Nov; 28(11):1360-1367. PubMed ID: 28039903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of a Novel 'Scan Body' on the In Vitro Scanning Accuracy of Full-Arch Implant Impressions.
Zhang T; Yang B; Ge R; Zhang C; Zhang H; Wang Y
Int Dent J; 2024 Aug; 74(4):847-854. PubMed ID: 38368235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.
Carbajal Mejía JB; Wakabayashi K; Nakamura T; Yatani H
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):392-399. PubMed ID: 28222873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
