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 *

162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35200249)

  • 1. Digital Dental Models: Is Photogrammetry an Alternative to Dental Extraoral and Intraoral Scanners?
    Zotti F; Rosolin L; Bersani M; Poscolere A; Pappalardo D; Zerman N
    Dent J (Basel); 2022 Feb; 10(2):. PubMed ID: 35200249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An
    Sason GK; Mistry G; Tabassum R; Shetty O
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2018; 18(2):108-116. PubMed ID: 29692563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. In vitro evaluation of the accuracy and precision of intraoral and extraoral complete-arch scans.
    Baghani MT; Shayegh SS; Johnston WM; Shidfar S; Hakimaneh SMR
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Nov; 126(5):665-670. PubMed ID: 33070974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy of a chairside intraoral scanner compared with a laboratory scanner for the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro 3-dimensional comparative analysis.
    Zarone F; Ruggiero G; Ferrari M; Mangano F; Joda T; Sorrentino R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Dec; 124(6):761.e1-761.e7. PubMed ID: 33289647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.
    Carbajal Mejía JB; Wakabayashi K; Nakamura T; Yatani H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):392-399. PubMed ID: 28222873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Bias Evaluation of the Accuracy of Two Extraoral Scanners and an Intraoral Scanner Based on ADA Standards.
    Cui N; Wang J; Hou X; Sun S; Huang Q; Lim HK; Cai H; Jia Q; Lee ES; Jiang HB
    Scanning; 2021; 2021():5535403. PubMed ID: 34221213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Conformity, reliability and validity of digital dental models created by clinical intraoral scanning and extraoral plaster model digitization workflows.
    Kirschneck C; Kamuf B; Putsch C; Chhatwani S; Bizhang M; Danesh G
    Comput Biol Med; 2018 Sep; 100():114-122. PubMed ID: 29990644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study.
    Ma B; Yue X; Sun Y; Peng L; Geng W
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Dec; 21(1):636. PubMed ID: 34893053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible.
    Hayama H; Fueki K; Wadachi J; Wakabayashi N
    J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Jul; 62(3):347-352. PubMed ID: 29502933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners.
    Bohner LOL; De Luca Canto G; Marció BS; Laganá DC; Sesma N; Tortamano Neto P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Nov; 118(5):617-623. PubMed ID: 28385434
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Digital Models Formulated From Direct Intra-oral Scanning of Dental Arches in Comparison With Extra-oral Scanning of Poured Dental Models in Terms of Dimensional Accuracy and Reliability.
    Jaber ST; Hajeer MY; Alkhouli KW; Al-Shamak RM; Darwich KMA; Aljabban O; Alam MK; Kara-Boulad JM
    Cureus; 2024 Feb; 16(2):e54869. PubMed ID: 38405645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Validation of Digital Impressions' Accuracy Obtained Using Intraoral and Extraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review.
    Shah N; Thakur M; Gill S; Shetty O; Alqahtani NM; Al-Qarni MA; Alqahtani SM; Elagib MFA; Chaturvedi S
    J Clin Med; 2023 Sep; 12(18):. PubMed ID: 37762774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses.
    Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine.
    Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Deviations in palatal region between indirect and direct digital models: an in vivo study.
    ; ; . PubMed ID: 31029133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.