184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34085355)
21. Evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch impressions between three different intraoral scanners and conventional impressions: A prospective in vivo study.
Bhatia N; Muthuswamy Pandian S
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects; 2024; 18(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 38881640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Digital mounting accuracy of 2 intraoral scanners with a single anterior or bilateral posterior occlusal scan: A three-dimensional analysis.
Cha C; Pyo SW; Chang JS; Kim S
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Oct; 130(4):612.e1-612.e8. PubMed ID: 37633731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters.
Chiu A; Chen YW; Hayashi J; Sadr A
Sensors (Basel); 2020 Feb; 20(4):. PubMed ID: 32093174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Evaluation of the fit of zirconia copings fabricated by direct and indirect digital scanning procedures.
Lee B; Oh KC; Haam D; Lee JH; Moon HS
J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):225-231. PubMed ID: 29428522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study.
Alshawaf B; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):835-842. PubMed ID: 29926977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Computerized Casts for Orthodontic Purpose Using Powder-Free Intraoral Scanners: Accuracy, Execution Time, and Patient Feedback.
Sfondrini MF; Gandini P; Malfatto M; Di Corato F; Trovati F; Scribante A
Biomed Res Int; 2018; 2018():4103232. PubMed ID: 29850512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparison of the acquisition accuracy and digitizing noise of 9 intraoral and extraoral scanners: An objective method.
Dupagne L; Tapie L; Lebon N; Mawussi B
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1032-1040. PubMed ID: 33781577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization.
Güth JF; Runkel C; Beuer F; Stimmelmayr M; Edelhoff D; Keul C
Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Jun; 21(5):1445-1455. PubMed ID: 27406138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence.
Diker B; Tak Ö
Int J Prosthodont; 2021; 34(1):101-108. PubMed ID: 33570525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Effect of pulp chamber depth on the accuracy of endocrown scans made with different intraoral scanners versus an industrial scanner: An in vitro study.
Gurpinar B; Tak O
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Mar; 127(3):430-437. PubMed ID: 33309210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. [Comparative analysis of 3D data accuracy of single tooth and full dental arch captured by different intraoral and laboratory digital impression systems].
Ryakhovskiy AN; Kostyukova VV
Stomatologiia (Mosk); 2016; 95(4):65-70. PubMed ID: 27636766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners.
Revilla-León M; Jiang P; Sadeghpour M; Piedra-Cascón W; Zandinejad A; Özcan M; Krishnamurthy VR
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Sep; 124(3):372-378. PubMed ID: 31864638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Digital impressions in dentistry-accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop scanners.
Runkel C; Güth JF; Erdelt K; Keul C
Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Mar; 24(3):1249-1257. PubMed ID: 31302771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Digital impressions' accuracy through "cut-out-rescan" and "data exchange by over scanning" techniques in complete arches of two intraoral scanners and CAD/CAM software.
Passos L; Meiga S; Brigagão V; Neumann M; Street A
J Prosthodont Res; 2022 Jul; 66(3):509-513. PubMed ID: 34789607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [Accuracy of three intraoral scans for primary impressions of edentulous jaws].
Cao Y; Chen JK; Deng KH; Wang Y; Sun YC; Zhao YJ
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Feb; 52(1):129-137. PubMed ID: 32071476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Scanning accuracy of nondental structured light extraoral scanners compared with that of a dental-specific scanner.
Piedra-Cascón W; Methani MM; Quesada-Olmo N; Jiménez-Martínez MJ; Revilla-León M
J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Jul; 126(1):110-114. PubMed ID: 32665118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data.
Patzelt SB; Bishti S; Stampf S; Att W
J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Nov; 145(11):1133-40. PubMed ID: 25359645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Trueness of Extraoral Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant Impressions-In Vitro Study.
Sampaio-Fernandes MA; Pinto R; Almeida PR; Sampaio-Fernandes MM; Marques D; Figueiral MH
Materials (Basel); 2024 Jun; 17(12):. PubMed ID: 38930301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
