325 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33832762)
1. Accuracy of implant impression techniques with a scannable healing abutment.
Jung HT; Kim HY; Song SY; Park JH; Lee JY
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Oct; 128(4):729-734. PubMed ID: 33832762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
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. Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial.
Dohiem MM; Abdelaziz MS; Abdalla MF; Fawzy AM
BMC Oral Health; 2022 Nov; 22(1):486. PubMed ID: 36371189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Prosthesis accuracy of fit on 3D-printed casts versus stone casts: A comparative study in the anterior maxilla.
Abdeen L; Chen YW; Kostagianni A; Finkelman M; Papathanasiou A; Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2022 Dec; 34(8):1238-1246. PubMed ID: 36415927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Influence of scan body design and digital implant analogs on implant replica position in additively manufactured casts.
Revilla-León M; Fogarty R; Barrington JJ; Zandinejad A; Özcan M
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Aug; 124(2):202-210. PubMed ID: 31787272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Atraumatic intraoral scans and virtual hybrid casts for custom implant abutments and zirconia implants: Accuracy of the workflow.
Schubert O; Edelhoff D; Schweiger J; Güth JF
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jun; 129(6):920-929. PubMed ID: 34598772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.
Papaspyridakos P; Gallucci GO; Chen CJ; Hanssen S; Naert I; Vandenberghe B
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Apr; 27(4):465-72. PubMed ID: 25682892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Accuracy of impression scan bodies for complete arch fixed implant-supported restorations.
Jeong M; Ishikawa-Nagai S; Lee JD; Lee SJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Dec; ():. PubMed ID: 38092618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques.
Alsharbaty MHM; Alikhasi M; Zarrati S; Shamshiri AR
J Prosthodont; 2019 Apr; 28(4):e902-e908. PubMed ID: 29423969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Comparison of the accuracy between full-arch digital scans and scannable impression materials: an in vitro study.
Grande F; Celeghin G; Gallinaro F; Mobilio N; Catapano S
Minerva Dent Oral Sci; 2023 Aug; 72(4):168-175. PubMed ID: 37066893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 3D Accuracy of a Conventional Method Versus Three Digital Scanning Strategies for Completely Edentulous Maxillary Implant Impressions.
Blanco-Plard A; Hernandez A; Pino F; Vargas N; Rivas-Tumanyan S; Elias A
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2023 Dec; 38(6):1211-1219. PubMed ID: 38085753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effect of scan body designs and internal conical angles on the 3-dimensional accuracy of implant digital scans.
Park GS; Chang J; Pyo SW; Kim S
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jul; 132(1):190.e1-190.e7. PubMed ID: 38692945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
