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 *

491 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34661950)

  • 61. Comparison of Intraoral and Extraoral Digital Scanners: Evaluation of Surface Topography and Precision.
    Lee SJ; Kim SW; Lee JJ; Cheong CW
    Dent J (Basel); 2020 May; 8(2):. PubMed ID: 32443865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Accuracy of 3-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated on 3D-printed casts.
    Jang Y; Sim JY; Park JK; Kim WC; Kim HY; Kim JH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):135-142. PubMed ID: 31027960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Dimensional accuracy and surface characteristics of 3D-printed dental casts.
    Park JM; Jeon J; Koak JY; Kim SK; Heo SJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Sep; 126(3):427-437. PubMed ID: 32958301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Do "cut out-rescan" procedures have an impact on the accuracy of intraoral digital scans?
    Reich S; Yatmaz B; Raith S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Jan; 125(1):89-94. PubMed ID: 32059858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression.
    Su TS; Sun J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Sep; 116(3):362-7. PubMed ID: 27061628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners.
    Lee JJ; Jeong ID; Park JY; Jeon JH; Kim JH; Kim WC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Feb; 117(2):253-259. PubMed ID: 27666500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. 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]  

  • 68. Accuracy of trial restorations from virtual planning: A comparison of two fabrication techniques.
    Ortensi L; Lo Castro E; Rapisarda E; Pedullà E
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Mar; 127(3):425-429. PubMed ID: 33317829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan.
    Park GH; Son K; Lee KB
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 May; 121(5):803-810. PubMed ID: 30598314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Influence of definitive and interim restorative materials and surface finishing on the scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner.
    Revilla-León M; Young K; Sicilia E; Cho SH; Kois JC
    J Dent; 2022 May; 120():104114. PubMed ID: 35358659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Accuracy of Conventional and 3D-Printed Casts for Partial Fixed Prostheses.
    Dias Resende CC; Moura GF; Piola Rizzante FA; Gonzaga LH; Januario AL; Mendonça G; das Neves FD; Zancopé K
    Int J Prosthodont; 2024 Feb; 37(7):13-17. PubMed ID: 38489216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. 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]  

  • 73. Accuracy of 3D digital modeling of dental arches.
    Favero R; Volpato A; Francesco M; Fiore AD; Guazzo R; Favero L
    Dental Press J Orthod; 2019; 24(1):38e1-37e7. PubMed ID: 30916255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Evaluation of the accuracy of seven intraoral scanners for the full dentate and partially edentulous complete-arch mandibular casts: An
    Wang X; Zhang F; Ma D; Ye X; Zheng X; Ren R; Ren N; Bai S
    Heliyon; 2024 May; 10(10):e31063. PubMed ID: 38803930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. 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]  

  • 76. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.
    Marghalani A; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Kudara Y; El Rafie K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579. PubMed ID: 28927923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. 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]  

  • 78. Comparison of the Fit of Lithium Disilicate Crowns made from Conventional, Digital, or Conventional/Digital Techniques.
    Al Hamad KQ; Al Rashdan BA; Al Omari WM; Baba NZ
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):e580-e586. PubMed ID: 30091168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. [
    Xu XX; Cao Y; Zhao YJ; Jia L; Xie QF
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Dec; 53(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 33550336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated from conventional and digital impressions assessed with micro-CT.
    Kim JH; Jeong JH; Lee JH; Cho HW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Oct; 116(4):551-557. PubMed ID: 27422237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 25.