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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35016797)

  • 21. Effect of disinfection of custom tray materials on adhesive properties of several impression material systems.
    Thompson GA; Vermilyea SG; Agar JR
    J Prosthet Dent; 1994 Dec; 72(6):651-6. PubMed ID: 7853264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Bond strength of three nonaqueous elastomeric impression materials to a light-activated resin tray.
    Payne JA; Pereira BP
    Int J Prosthodont; 1992; 5(1):55-8. PubMed ID: 1520444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The effect of selected variables on the retention of irreversible hydrocolloid impression material.
    Al-Athel MS
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 Sep; 9(6):57-64. PubMed ID: 18784860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A Novel Functional Swallow Method to Establish the Posterior Palatal Seal during the Maxillary Edentulous Final Impression: A Case Report.
    Krishna R; Mandokar RB; Mishra S; Jagadeesh K; Janya S; Alva B
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2020 Dec; 21(12):1404-1407. PubMed ID: 33893267
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. An alternative method of fabricating a custom tray for direct implant impressions.
    Cura C; Isik FG; Dundar M
    Gen Dent; 2011; 59(1):e22-4. PubMed ID: 21613027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The effects of custom tray material on the accuracy of master casts.
    Shafa S; Zaree Z; Mosharraf R
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 Sep; 9(6):49-56. PubMed ID: 18784859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The effect of custom tray material type and fabrication technique on tensile bond strength of impression material adhesive systems.
    Abdullah MA; Talic YF
    J Oral Rehabil; 2003 Mar; 30(3):312-7. PubMed ID: 12588506
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Determining the accuracy of stock and custom tray impression/casts.
    Millstein P; Maya A; Segura C
    J Oral Rehabil; 1998 Aug; 25(8):645-8. PubMed ID: 9781870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The effect of custom tray material type and surface treatment on the tensile bond strength of an impression material/adhesive system.
    Dixon DL; Breeding LC; Bosser MJ; Nafso AJ
    Int J Prosthodont; 1993; 6(3):303-6. PubMed ID: 8397701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. French-chalk filled chemically-activated acrylic resin tray material.
    Barua AK; Kharat DD
    J Indian Dent Assoc; 1983 Jun; 55(6):224-5. PubMed ID: 6363557
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The posterior palatal seal. A review.
    Ettinger RL; Scandrett FR
    Aust Dent J; 1980 Aug; 25(4):197-200. PubMed ID: 7004416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Passive fit and accuracy of three dental implant impression techniques.
    Al Quran FA; Rashdan BA; Zomar AA; Weiner S
    Quintessence Int; 2012 Feb; 43(2):119-25. PubMed ID: 22257873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. [Impression taking in a partially edentulous jaw with the aid of a separable individual tray of acrylic resin].
    Brunner T
    Quintessenz; 1970 Apr; 21(4):65-8. PubMed ID: 4913456
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Accuracy of implant impressions with different impression coping types and shapes.
    Rashidan N; Alikhasi M; Samadizadeh S; Beyabanaki E; Kharazifard MJ
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 Apr; 14(2):218-25. PubMed ID: 19804420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Direct custom implant impression copings for the preservation of the pontic receptor site architecture.
    Schoenbaum TR; Han TJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Mar; 107(3):203-6. PubMed ID: 22489334
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparing effects of tray treatment on the accuracy of dies.
    Tjan AH; Whang SB
    J Prosthet Dent; 1987 Aug; 58(2):175-8. PubMed ID: 3305883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Custom impression trays. Part II: Removal forces.
    Dixon DL; Breeding LC; Moseley JP
    J Prosthet Dent; 1994 Mar; 71(3):316-8. PubMed ID: 8164177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Factors that affect the adhesion of two irreversible hydrocolloid materials to two custom tray materials.
    Smith SJ; McCord JF; Macfarlane TV
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Oct; 88(4):423-30. PubMed ID: 12447220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Accuracy of an open-tray implant impression technique with 3 splinting materials: an in vitro study.
    Kamrani FA; Namazi AH; Hamedy R; Ghadiri P
    Gen Dent; 2014; 62(2):62-6. PubMed ID: 24598499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The effect of custom tray material type and adhesive drying time on the tensile bond strength of an impression material/adhesive system.
    Dixon DL; Breeding LC; Brown JS
    Int J Prosthodont; 1994; 7(2):129-33. PubMed ID: 8003192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.