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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3458908)

  • 1. Comparison of an electronic and a mechanical pantograph. Part I: Consistency of an electronic computerized pantograph to record articulator settings.
    Beard CC; Donaldson K; Clayton JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 1986 May; 55(5):570-4. PubMed ID: 3458908
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of articulator settings obtained by using an electronic pantograph and lateral interocclusal recordings.
    Price RB; Bannerman RA
    J Prosthet Dent; 1988 Aug; 60(2):159-64. PubMed ID: 3172002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An in vitro study of an electronic pantograph.
    Anderson GC; Schulte JK; Arnold TG
    J Prosthet Dent; 1987 May; 57(5):577-80. PubMed ID: 3474405
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A graphic comparison of mandibular border movements generated by various articulators. Part II: Results.
    Hatano Y; Kolling JN; Stern N; Clayton JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 1989 Apr; 61(4):425-9. PubMed ID: 2724155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A graphic comparison of mandibular border movements generated by various articulators. Part I: Methodology.
    Stern N; Hatano Y; Kolling JN; Clayton JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 1988 Aug; 60(2):194-8. PubMed ID: 3172004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of the intercondylar distance and the interfacial width as used with the electronic pantograph.
    Mandilaris CB; Beard CC; Clayton JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 1992 Mar; 67(3):331-4. PubMed ID: 1507096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Stabilizing the pantograph from patient to articulator.
    Schneider RL
    J Prosthet Dent; 1984 Aug; 52(2):310. PubMed ID: 6590847
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [T.T. articulator pantograph].
    Tamaki T; Tamaki ST
    Ars Curandi Odontol; 1977 Dec; 4(9):50-7. PubMed ID: 293159
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Technique for transferring information from a pantograph tracing to semiadjustable articulators.
    Gordon SR; Stoffer WM
    J Prosthet Dent; 1985 Oct; 54(4):503-7. PubMed ID: 3862808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparison of condylar control settings using three methods: a bench study.
    Pelletier LB; Campbell SD
    J Prosthet Dent; 1991 Aug; 66(2):193-200. PubMed ID: 1774679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Observations on the use of the Denar pantograph and articulator.
    Winstanley RB
    J Prosthet Dent; 1977 Dec; 38(6):660-72. PubMed ID: 271716
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Errors incurred in programming a fully adjustable articulator with a pantograph.
    Curtis DA; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 1986 Apr; 55(4):427-9. PubMed ID: 3457176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Potential errors when using a computerized pantograph.
    Price RB; Gerrow JD; Ramier WC
    J Prosthet Dent; 1989 Feb; 61(2):155-60. PubMed ID: 2715947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Electronic PRI consistency in diagnosing temporomandibular joint dysfunction.
    Beard CC; Clayton JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 1986 Feb; 55(2):255-9. PubMed ID: 3457157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of mandibular movements recorded by two pantographs.
    Donaldson K; Clayton JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 1986 Jan; 55(1):52-8. PubMed ID: 3456048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An in vitro evaluation of the reliability and validity of an electronic pantograph by testing with five different articulators.
    Chang WS; Romberg E; Driscoll CF; Tabacco MJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2004 Jul; 92(1):83-9. PubMed ID: 15232566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A comparison of the equivalence of jaw and articulator movements.
    Dos Santos Júnior J; Ash MM
    J Prosthet Dent; 1988 Jan; 59(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 3422300
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of articulator settings obtained using a computerized pantograph with settings obtained using a lateral check bite recording.
    Price RB; Gerrow JD; Ramier WC
    Quintessence Int; 1988 Jun; 19(6):423-30. PubMed ID: 3269591
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Individualized registration of mandibular movements using the electronic computerized registration (ECR) system].
    Luchenbach A; Hüls A; Körber E
    Dtsch Zahnarztl Z; 1986 Jul; 41(7):677-83. PubMed ID: 3461992
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An electronic, computerized pantographic reproducibility index for diagnosing temporomandibular joint dysfunction.
    Clayton JA; Beard CC
    J Prosthet Dent; 1986 Apr; 55(4):500-5. PubMed ID: 3457183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.