481 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34661950)
41. Effect of additive manufacturing process and storage condition on the dimensional accuracy and stability of 3D-printed dental casts.
Yousef H; Harris BT; Elathamna EN; Morton D; Lin WS
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1041-1046. PubMed ID: 33785200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions.
Albayrak B; Sukotjo C; Wee AG; Korkmaz İH; Bayındır F
J Prosthodont; 2021 Feb; 30(2):163-170. PubMed ID: 32935894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows.
Sim JY; Jang Y; Kim WC; Kim HY; Lee DH; Kim JH
J Prosthodont Res; 2019 Jan; 63(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 29615324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods.
Cho SH; Schaefer O; Thompson GA; Guentsch A
J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Apr; 113(4):310-5. PubMed ID: 25682531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Influence of different material substrates on the accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: A single-blinded in vitro study.
Michelinakis G; Apostolakis D; Tsagarakis A; Lampropoulos P
Int J Prosthodont; 2022; 35(1):82–93. PubMed ID: 33751003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. 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]
47. Evaluation of the accuracy of dental casts manufactured with 3D printing technique in the All-on-4 treatment concept.
Tas H; Demirci F; Tuzlali M; Bahce E; Yildirim Avcu G
J Adv Prosthodont; 2022 Dec; 14(6):379-387. PubMed ID: 36685787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch.
Tan MY; Yee SHX; Wong KM; Tan YH; Tan KBC
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(2):366–380. PubMed ID: 30521661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. 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]
50. Effect of inter-dental abutment distance on the impression accuracy of digital and conventional methods.
Shalileh S; Abbasi K; Azhmand H; Ghoraishian SA; Mohaghegh M
J Med Life; 2023 May; 16(5):736-742. PubMed ID: 37520485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans based on confocal microscopy versus optical triangulation: A comparative in vitro study.
Waldecker M; Rues S; Rammelsberg P; Bömicke W
J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Sep; 126(3):414-420. PubMed ID: 32950254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. 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]
53. Trueness evaluation of three intraoral scanners for the recording of maximal intercuspal position.
Wang S; Zhou Z; Yuan Q; Yue L; Yang S
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2024 Apr; 42(2):227-233. PubMed ID: 38597082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. A Novel Methodology to Validate the Accuracy of Extraoral Dental Scanners and Digital Articulation Systems.
Ellakwa A; Elnajar S; Littlefair D; Sara G
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2018 May; 26(2):75-84. PubMed ID: 29722937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Position Accuracy of Implant Analogs on 3D Printed Polymer versus Conventional Dental Stone Casts Measured Using a Coordinate Measuring Machine.
Revilla-León M; Gonzalez-Martín Ó; Pérez López J; Sánchez-Rubio JL; Özcan M
J Prosthodont; 2018 Jul; 27(6):560-567. PubMed ID: 29148121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions for Whole Upper Jaws, Including Full Dentitions and Palatal Soft Tissues.
Gan N; Xiong Y; Jiao T
PLoS One; 2016; 11(7):e0158800. PubMed ID: 27383409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Digital vs Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Retrospective Analysis of 36 Edentulous Jaws.
Papaspyridakos P; De Souza A; Finkelman M; Sicilia E; Gotsis S; Chen YW; Vazouras K; Chochlidakis K
J Prosthodont; 2023 Apr; 32(4):325-330. PubMed ID: 35524647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Evaluating the influence of palate scanning on the accuracy of complete-arch digital impressions-An in vitro study.
Schmalzl J; Keskeny GÁ; Hermann P; Pál A; Géczi Z; Borbély J; Róth I
J Dent; 2024 Jun; 145():105014. PubMed ID: 38648874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Accuracy of different digital acquisition methods in complete arch implant-supported prostheses: An in vitro study.
Pinto RJ; Casado SA; Chmielewski K; Caramês JM; Marques DS
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jul; 132(1):172-177. PubMed ID: 37620183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Comparison of the dimensional and morphological accuracy of three-dimensional digital dental casts digitized using different methods.
Ye J; Wang S; Wang Z; Liu Y; Sun Y; Ye H; Zhou Y
Odontology; 2023 Jan; 111(1):165-171. PubMed ID: 36068382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
