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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34919709)

  • 21. Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques.
    Malik J; Rodriguez J; Weisbloom M; Petridis H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(2):107-113. PubMed ID: 29518805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Comparison of the contact angle of water on set elastomeric impression materials.
    Nassar U; Tavoossi F; Pan YW; Milavong-Viravongsa N; Heo G; Nychka JA
    J Can Dent Assoc; 2018 May; 84():i6. PubMed ID: 31199723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Dimensional accuracy and detail reproduction of two hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression materials tested under different conditions.
    Katyayan PA; Kalavathy N; Katyayan M
    Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(6):881-2. PubMed ID: 22484900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Evaluation of surface detail reproduction, dimensional stability and gypsum compatibility of monophase polyvinyl-siloxane and polyether elastomeric impression materials under dry and moist conditions.
    Vadapalli SB; Atluri K; Putcha MS; Kondreddi S; Kumar NS; Tadi DP
    J Int Soc Prev Community Dent; 2016; 6(4):302-8. PubMed ID: 27583217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Correlation of impression removal force with elastomeric impression material rigidity and hardness.
    Walker MP; Alderman N; Petrie CS; Melander J; McGuire J
    J Prosthodont; 2013 Jul; 22(5):362-6. PubMed ID: 23387301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Margin adaptation of indirect composite inlays fabricated on flexible dies.
    Price RB; Gerrow JD
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Mar; 83(3):306-13. PubMed ID: 10709039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Wettability, imbibition, and mass change of disinfected low-viscosity impression materials.
    Lepe X; Johnson GH; Berg JC; Aw TC; Stroh GS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Sep; 88(3):268-76. PubMed ID: 12426496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Surface roughness of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials following chemical disinfection, autoclave and microwave sterilization.
    Al Kheraif AA
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2013 May; 14(3):483-7. PubMed ID: 24171994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Accuracy of a reformulated fast-set vinyl polysiloxane impression material using dual-arch trays.
    Kang AH; Johnson GH; Lepe X; Wataha JC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 May; 101(5):332-41. PubMed ID: 19410067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Accuracy of a new ring-opening metathesis elastomeric dental impression material with spray and immersion disinfection.
    Kronström MH; Johnson GH; Hompesch RW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Jan; 103(1):23-30. PubMed ID: 20105678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The influence of tray space and repeat pours on the accuracy of monophasic polyvinylsiloxane impression.
    Rajapur A; Dixit S; Hoshing C; Raikar SP
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Nov; 13(6):824-9. PubMed ID: 23404010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Digital evaluation of the accuracy of impression techniques and materials in angulated implants.
    Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S; Ozan O; Ozcelik TB; Yagiz A
    J Dent; 2014 Dec; 42(12):1551-9. PubMed ID: 25446736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Evaluation of defects in surface detail for monophase, 2-phase, and 3-phase impression techniques: an in vitro study.
    Varvara G; Murmura G; Sinjari B; Cardelli P; Caputi S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Feb; 113(2):108-13. PubMed ID: 25438741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Elastomeric impression materials: a comparison of accuracy of multiple pours.
    Kumar D; Madihalli AU; Reddy KR; Rastogi N; Pradeep NT
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2011 Jul; 12(4):272-8. PubMed ID: 22186862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Accuracy of various impression materials and methods for two implant systems: An effect size study.
    Schmidt A; Häussling T; Rehmann P; Schaaf H; Wöstmann B
    J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Apr; 62(2):245-251. PubMed ID: 29191609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques with the use of addition silicone impression materials.
    Al-Bakri IA; Hussey D; Al-Omari WM
    J Clin Dent; 2007; 18(2):29-33. PubMed ID: 17508620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 3D evaluation of the effect of disinfectants on dimensional accuracy and stability of two elastomeric impression materials.
    Soganci G; Cinar D; Caglar A; Yagiz A
    Dent Mater J; 2018 Jul; 37(4):675-684. PubMed ID: 29848853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays.
    Johnson GH; Mancl LA; Schwedhelm ER; Verhoef DR; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Jan; 103(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 20105676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The dynamic interaction of water with four dental impression materials during cure.
    Hosseinpour D; Berg JC
    J Prosthodont; 2009 Jun; 18(4):292-300. PubMed ID: 19210607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Dimensional accuracy of a new polyether impression material.
    Endo T; Finger WJ
    Quintessence Int; 2006 Jan; 37(1):47-51. PubMed ID: 16429703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.