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 *

170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33775391)

  • 1. Clinical evaluation of the precision of interocclusal registration by using digital and conventional techniques.
    Iwauchi Y; Tanaka S; Kamimura-Sugimura E; Baba K
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Oct; 128(4):611-617. PubMed ID: 33775391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Three-dimensional analysis of the accuracy of conventional and completely digital interocclusal registration methods.
    Ries JM; Grünler C; Wichmann M; Matta RE
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):994-1000. PubMed ID: 33888327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. In vivo precision of digital static interocclusal registration for full arch and quadrant arch scans: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
    Morsy N; El Kateb M
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Dec; 22(1):559. PubMed ID: 36456986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions for Whole Upper Jaws, Including Full Dentitions and Palatal Soft Tissues.
    Gan N; Xiong Y; Jiao T
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(7):e0158800. PubMed ID: 27383409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Accuracy of four recent intraoral scanners with respect to two different ceramic surfaces.
    Yatmaz BB; Raith S; Reich S
    J Dent; 2023 Mar; 130():104414. PubMed ID: 36640842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Influence of ambient light conditions on the accuracy and scanning time of seven intraoral scanners in complete-arch implant scans.
    Ochoa-López G; Cascos R; Antonaya-Martín JL; Revilla-León M; Gómez-Polo M
    J Dent; 2022 Jun; 121():104138. PubMed ID: 35461973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study.
    Miyoshi K; Tanaka S; Yokoyama S; Sanda M; Baba K
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2020 Jan; 31(1):74-83. PubMed ID: 31608509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: A single-blinded in vitro study.
    Michelinakis G; Apostolakis D; Tsagarakis A; Kourakis G; Pavlakis E
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Nov; 124(5):581-588. PubMed ID: 31870614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation.
    Kim RJ; Park JM; Shim JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):895-903.e1. PubMed ID: 30006228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method.
    Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Nyström I; Rydén J; Thor A
    J Dent; 2018 Feb; 69():110-118. PubMed ID: 29246490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 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. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans.
    Resende CCD; Barbosa TAQ; Moura GF; Tavares LDN; Rizzante FAP; George FM; Neves FDD; Mendonça G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Feb; 125(2):294-299. PubMed ID: 32115221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.
    Marghalani A; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Kudara Y; El Rafie K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579. PubMed ID: 28927923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Accuracy of digital complete-arch, multi-implant scans made in the edentulous jaw with gingival movement simulation: An in vitro study.
    Knechtle N; Wiedemeier D; Mehl A; Ender A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):468-478. PubMed ID: 33612335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.