186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34085355)
1. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained from Intraoral and Extraoral Dental Scanners with Different CAD/CAM Scanning Technologies: An In Vitro Study.
Ellakany P; Tantawi ME; Mahrous AA; Al-Harbi F
J Prosthodont; 2022 Apr; 31(4):314-319. PubMed ID: 34085355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Accuracy of 3D Printed and Digital Casts Produced from Intraoral and Extraoral Scanners with Different Scanning Technologies: In Vitro Study.
Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
J Prosthodont; 2022 Jul; 31(6):521-528. PubMed ID: 34661950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A comparative study assessing the precision and trueness of digital and printed casts produced from several intraoral and extraoral scanners in full arch and short span (3-unit FPD) scanning: An in vitro study.
Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
J Prosthodont; 2023 Jun; 32(5):423-430. PubMed ID: 35852379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and 3D-printed casts compared with conventional stone casts.
Ellakany P; Al-Harbi F; El Tantawi M; Mohsen C
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Mar; 127(3):438-444. PubMed ID: 33308856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accuracy of a chairside intraoral scanner compared with a laboratory scanner for the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro 3-dimensional comparative analysis.
Zarone F; Ruggiero G; Ferrari M; Mangano F; Joda T; Sorrentino R
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Dec; 124(6):761.e1-761.e7. PubMed ID: 33289647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners.
Bohner LOL; De Luca Canto G; Marció BS; Laganá DC; Sesma N; Tortamano Neto P
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Nov; 118(5):617-623. PubMed ID: 28385434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Trueness of CAD/CAM digitization with a desktop scanner - an in vitro study.
Joós-Kovács G; Vecsei B; Körmendi S; Gyarmathy VA; Borbély J; Hermann P
BMC Oral Health; 2019 Dec; 19(1):280. PubMed ID: 31830970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An
Sason GK; Mistry G; Tabassum R; Shetty O
J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2018; 18(2):108-116. PubMed ID: 29692563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.
Flügge TV; Schlager S; Nelson K; Nahles S; Metzger MC
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Sep; 144(3):471-8. PubMed ID: 23992820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. In vitro evaluation of the accuracy and precision of intraoral and extraoral complete-arch scans.
Baghani MT; Shayegh SS; Johnston WM; Shidfar S; Hakimaneh SMR
J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Nov; 126(5):665-670. PubMed ID: 33070974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Interproximal distance analysis of stereolithographic casts made by CAD-CAM technology: An in vitro study.
Hoffman M; Cho SH; Bansal NK
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Nov; 118(5):624-630. PubMed ID: 28477918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression.
Su TS; Sun J
J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Sep; 116(3):362-7. PubMed ID: 27061628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Accuracy of Silicone Impressions and Stone Models Using Two Laboratory Scanners: A 3D Evaluation.
Sampaio-Fernandes MAF; Pinto R; Sampaio-Fernandes MM; Sampaio-Fernandes JC; Marques D; Figueiral MH
Int J Prosthodont; 2024 Feb; 37(1):109. PubMed ID: 38381990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparative analysis of intraoral scanners accuracy using 3D software: an in vivo study.
Pellitteri F; Albertini P; Vogrig A; Spedicato GA; Siciliani G; Lombardo L
Prog Orthod; 2022 Jul; 23(1):21. PubMed ID: 35781850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Influence of the Number of Teeth and Location of the Virtual Occlusal Record on the Accuracy of the Maxillo-Mandibular Relationship Obtained by Using An Intraoral Scanner.
Revilla-León M; Alonso Pérez-Barquero J; Zubizarreta-Macho Á; Barmak AB; Att W; Kois JC
J Prosthodont; 2023 Mar; 32(3):253-258. PubMed ID: 35448911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems.
Shembesh M; Ali A; Finkelman M; Weber HP; Zandparsa R
J Prosthodont; 2017 Oct; 26(7):581-586. PubMed ID: 26855068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
