448 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34661950)
21. Comparison of intraoral scanning and CBCT to generate digital and 3D-printed casts by fused deposition modeling and digital light processing.
de Freitas BN; Mendonça LM; Cruvinel PB; de Lacerda TJ; Leite FGJ; Oliveira-Santos C; Tirapelli C
J Dent; 2023 Jan; 128():104387. PubMed ID: 36496106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.
Carbajal Mejía JB; Wakabayashi K; Nakamura T; Yatani H
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):392-399. PubMed ID: 28222873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. 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]
25. [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]
26. Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: A comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing.
Wesemann C; Muallah J; Mah J; Bumann A
Quintessence Int; 2017; 48(1):41-50. PubMed ID: 27834416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners.
Treesh JC; Liacouras PC; Taft RM; Brooks DI; Raiciulescu S; Ellert DO; Grant GT; Ye L
J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):382-388. PubMed ID: 29724554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae.
Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P; Tsigarida A; Romeo D; Chen YW; Natto Z; Ercoli C
J Prosthodont; 2020 Apr; 29(4):281-286. PubMed ID: 32166793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. Accuracy of intraoral scans: An in vivo study of different scanning devices.
Kernen F; Schlager S; Seidel Alvarez V; Mehrhof J; Vach K; Kohal R; Nelson K; Flügge T
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Dec; 128(6):1303-1309. PubMed ID: 33902891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Complete Digital Workflow for Prosthesis Prototype Fabrication with Double Digital Scanning: Accuracy of Fit Assessment.
Papaspyridakos P; AlFulaij F; Bokhary A; Sallustio A; Chochlidakis K
J Prosthodont; 2023 Jan; 32(1):49-53. PubMed ID: 35176178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Generation and evaluation of 3D digital casts of maxillary defects based on multisource data registration: A pilot clinical study.
Ye H; Ma Q; Hou Y; Li M; Zhou Y
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Dec; 118(6):790-795. PubMed ID: 28449864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral scanners on the accuracy of digital model articulation.
Porter JL; Carrico CK; Lindauer SJ; Tüfekçi E
J Orthod; 2018 Dec; 45(4):275-282. PubMed ID: 30024348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Accuracy of four recent intraoral scanners with respect to two different ceramic surfaces.
Yatmaz BB; Raith S; Reich S
J Dent; 2023 Mar; 130():104414. PubMed ID: 36640842
[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. 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]
40. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner.
Revilla-León M; Subramanian SG; Özcan M; Krishnamurthy VR
J Prosthodont; 2020 Feb; 29(2):107-113. PubMed ID: 31860144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
