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 *

697 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34916642)

  • 1. Conventional free-hand, dynamic navigation and static guided implant surgery produce similar short-term patient-reported outcome measures and experiences.
    Afrashtehfar KI
    Evid Based Dent; 2021 Dec; 22(4):143-145. PubMed ID: 34916642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparing patient-reported outcomes and experiences among static, dynamic computer-aided, and conventional freehand dental implant placement: A randomized clinical trial.
    Engkawong S; Mattheos N; Pisarnturakit PP; Pimkhaokham A; Subbalekha K
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2021 Oct; 23(5):660-670. PubMed ID: 34231956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accuracy of dental implant placement with or without the use of a dynamic navigation assisted system: A randomized clinical trial.
    Jorba-García A; Bara-Casaus JJ; Camps-Font O; Sánchez-Garcés MÁ; Figueiredo R; Valmaseda-Castellón E
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2023 May; 34(5):438-449. PubMed ID: 36794798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy assessment of dynamic navigation during implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies in the last 10 years.
    Yu X; Tao B; Wang F; Wu Y
    J Dent; 2023 Aug; 135():104567. PubMed ID: 37263412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Computer-guided versus free-hand placement of immediately loaded dental implants: 1-year post-loading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
    Pozzi A; Tallarico M; Marchetti M; Scarfò B; Esposito M
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2014; 7(3):229-42. PubMed ID: 25237668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy assessment of dynamic computer-aided implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Jorba-García A; González-Barnadas A; Camps-Font O; Figueiredo R; Valmaseda-Castellón E
    Clin Oral Investig; 2021 May; 25(5):2479-2494. PubMed ID: 33635397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Dynamic and static computer-assisted implant surgery for completely edentulous patients. A proof of a concept.
    Pomares-Puig C; Sánchez-Garcés MA; Jorba-García A
    J Dent; 2023 Mar; 130():104443. PubMed ID: 36720424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Computer-guided vs freehand placement of immediately loaded dental implants: 5-year postloading results of a randomised controlled trial.
    Tallarico M; Esposito M; Xhanari E; Caneva M; Meloni SM
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2018; 11(2):203-213. PubMed ID: 29806667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Minimal invasiveness at dental implant placement: A systematic review with meta-analyses on flapless fully guided surgery.
    Romandini M; Ruales-Carrera E; Sadilina S; Hämmerle CHF; Sanz M
    Periodontol 2000; 2023 Feb; 91(1):89-112. PubMed ID: 35906928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Patient-reported outcome measures comparing static computer-aided implant surgery and conventional implant surgery for single-tooth replacement: A randomized controlled trial.
    Kunavisarut C; Santivitoonvong A; Chaikantha S; Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S; Joda T
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2022 Mar; 33(3):278-290. PubMed ID: 34921690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Minimally invasive flap compared to a trapezoidal flap in lateral approach maxillary sinus elevation procedures: Four-month post-loading results from a split-mouth randomised controlled trial.
    Baldini N; D'Elia C; Mirra R; Ferrari M
    Int J Oral Implantol (Berl); 2019; 12(2):209-224. PubMed ID: 31090751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Implant surgery using bone- and mucosa-supported stereolithographic guides in totally edentulous jaws: surgical and post-operative outcomes of computer-aided vs. standard techniques.
    Arisan V; Karabuda CZ; Ozdemir T
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2010 Sep; 21(9):980-8. PubMed ID: 20497439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Accuracy of computer-assisted template-based implant placement using conventional impression and scan model or intraoral digital impression: A randomised controlled trial with 1 year of follow-up.
    Tallarico M; Xhanari E; Kim YJ; Cocchi F; Martinolli M; Alushi A; Baldoni EE; Meloni SM
    Int J Oral Implantol (Berl); 2019; 12(2):197-206. PubMed ID: 31090750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) analysing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), economics and surgical complications: A systematic review.
    Joda T; Derksen W; Wittneben JG; Kuehl S
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():359-373. PubMed ID: 30328203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The influence of guided sleeve height, drilling distance, and drilling key length on the accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery.
    El Kholy K; Janner SFM; Schimmel M; Buser D
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2019 Feb; 21(1):101-107. PubMed ID: 30589502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Conventional drills vs piezoelectric surgery preparation for placement of four immediately loaded zygomatic oncology implants in edentulous maxillae: results from 1-year split-mouth randomised controlled trial.
    Esposito M; Barausse C; Balercia A; Pistilli R; Ippolito DR; Felice P
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2017; 10(2):147-158. PubMed ID: 28555205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy of a dynamic navigation system for dental implantation with two different workflows and intraoral markers compared to static-guided implant surgery: An in-vitro study.
    Struwe M; Leontiev W; Connert T; Kühl S; Filippi A; Herber V; Dagassan-Berndt D
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2023 Mar; 34(3):196-208. PubMed ID: 36626272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. An RCT comparing patient-centred outcome variables of guided surgery (bone or mucosa supported) with conventional implant placement.
    Vercruyssen M; De Laat A; Coucke W; Quirynen M
    J Clin Periodontol; 2014 Jul; 41(7):724-32. PubMed ID: 24708422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Flapless vs flapped implant insertion in patients with controlled type 2 diabetes subjected to delayed loading: 1-year follow-up results from a randomised controlled trial.
    Agrawal KK; Rao J; Anwar M; Singh K; Himanshu D
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2017; 10(4):403-413. PubMed ID: 29234747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The influence of prophylactic antibiotic administration on post-operative morbidity in dental implant surgery. A prospective double blind randomized controlled clinical trial.
    Nolan R; Kemmoona M; Polyzois I; Claffey N
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2014 Feb; 25(2):252-9. PubMed ID: 23406290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 35.