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 *

228 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34568955)

  • 1. Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: a systematic review.
    Siqueira R; Galli M; Chen Z; Mendonça G; Meirelles L; Wang HL; Chan HL
    Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Dec; 25(12):6517-6531. PubMed ID: 34568955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review.
    Michelinakis G; Apostolakis D; Kamposiora P; Papavasiliou G; Özcan M
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Jan; 21(1):37. PubMed ID: 33478459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle.
    Nagata K; Fuchigami K; Okuhama Y; Wakamori K; Tsuruoka H; Nakashizu T; Hoshi N; Atsumi M; Kimoto K; Kawana H
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Sep; 21(1):464. PubMed ID: 34556111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) comparing digital and conventional workflows for treatment with posterior single-unit implant restorations: A randomized controlled trial.
    Kunavisarut C; Jarangkul W; Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S; Joda T
    J Dent; 2022 Feb; 117():103875. PubMed ID: 34728252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review.
    Joda T; Zarone F; Ferrari M
    BMC Oral Health; 2017 Sep; 17(1):124. PubMed ID: 28927393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial.
    Joda T; Lenherr P; Dedem P; Kovaltschuk I; Bragger U; Zitzmann NU
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Oct; 28(10):1318-1323. PubMed ID: 27596805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review.
    Rutkūnas V; Gečiauskaitė A; Jegelevičius D; Vaitiekūnas M
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2017; 10 Suppl 1():101-120. PubMed ID: 28944372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study.
    Yan Y; Lin X; Yue X; Geng W
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Oct; 130(4):564-572. PubMed ID: 35667889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The precision of two alternative indirect workflows for digital model production: an illusion or a possibility?
    Elkersh NM; Fahmy RA; Zayet MK; Gaweesh YS; Hassan MG
    Clin Oral Investig; 2023 Jul; 27(7):3787-3797. PubMed ID: 37046002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Limited evidence suggests complete arch digital scans are less time efficient than conventional impression.
    Sedky A; Abd-Elwahab Radi I
    Evid Based Dent; 2020 Dec; 21(4):138-139. PubMed ID: 33339976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of the Clinical Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Dental Implant Impressions.
    Rutkunas V; Gedrimiene A; Adaskevicius R; Al-Haj Husain N; Özcan M
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2020 Nov; 28(4):173-181. PubMed ID: 32673469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Error propagation from intraoral scanning to additive manufacturing of complete-arch dentate models: An in vitro study.
    Auškalnis L; Akulauskas M; Jegelevičius D; Simonaitis T; Rutkūnas V
    J Dent; 2022 Jun; 121():104136. PubMed ID: 35460866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions.
    Sailer I; Mühlemann S; Fehmer V; Hämmerle CHF; Benic GI
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Jan; 121(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 30017152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: A systematic review.
    Zhang YJ; Shi JY; Qian SJ; Qiao SC; Lai HC
    Int J Oral Implantol (Berl); 2021 May; 14(2):157-179. PubMed ID: 34006079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Three-dimensional differences between intraoral scans and conventional impressions of edentulous jaws: A clinical study.
    Lo Russo L; Caradonna G; Troiano G; Salamini A; Guida L; Ciavarella D
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Feb; 123(2):264-268. PubMed ID: 31153614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.