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.
258 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35313029)
1. Accuracy of Fixed Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses Additively Manufactured by Metal, Ceramic, or Polymer: A Systematic Review. Rutkūnas V; Gedrimienė A; Auškalnis L; Admakin O; Mangano F J Prosthodont; 2022 Mar; 31(S1):70-87. PubMed ID: 35313029 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 3D metal printing in dentistry: An in vitro biomechanical comparative study of two additive manufacturing technologies for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. Barbin T; Velôso DV; Del Rio Silva L; Borges GA; Presotto AGC; Barão VAR; Mesquita MF J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2020 Aug; 108():103821. PubMed ID: 32469723 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. In vitro precision of fit of computer-aided designed and computer-aided manufactured titanium screw-retained fixed dental prostheses before and after ceramic veneering. Katsoulis J; Mericske-Stern R; Enkling N; Katsoulis K; Blatz MB Clin Oral Implants Res; 2015; 26(1):44-9. PubMed ID: 24289301 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of press-on-metal and conventional ceramic systems for three- and four-unit implant-supported partial fixed dental prostheses: An in vitro study. Bayramoğlu E; Özkan YK; Yildiz C J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Jul; 114(1):52-8. PubMed ID: 25858218 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracy of marginal fit of an implant-supported framework fabricated by 3D printing versus subtractive manufacturing technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thakur J; Parlani S; Shivakumar S; Jajoo K J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Feb; 129(2):301-309. PubMed ID: 34147238 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Passivity of fit of CAD/CAM and copy-milled frameworks, veneered frameworks, and anatomically contoured, zirconia ceramic, implant-supported fixed prostheses. Karl M; Graef F; Wichmann M; Krafft T J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Apr; 107(4):232-8. PubMed ID: 22475466 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Effect of materials and superstructure designs on the passive fit of implant-supported fixed prostheses]. Song S; Zheng Z; Yang LY; Gao X Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Feb; 37(1):37-41. PubMed ID: 30854816 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of Marginal and Internal Adaptation of CAD/CAM and Conventional Cement Retained Implant-Supported Single Crowns. Nejatidanesh F; Shakibamehr AH; Savabi O Implant Dent; 2016 Feb; 25(1):103-8. PubMed ID: 26505132 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Mechanical properties of 3D printed prosthetic materials compared with milled and conventional processing: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Valenti C; Isabella Federici M; Masciotti F; Marinucci L; Xhimitiku I; Cianetti S; Pagano S J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Aug; 132(2):381-391. PubMed ID: 35934576 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Ceramic versus metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lemos CAA; Verri FR; Gomes JML; de Souza Batista VE; Cruz RS; Oliveira HFFE; Pellizzer EP J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Jun; 121(6):879-886.e4. PubMed ID: 30661882 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of feldspathic porcelain layering on the marginal fit of zirconia and titanium complete-arch fixed implant-supported frameworks. Yilmaz B; Alshahrani FA; Kale E; Johnston WM J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Jul; 120(1):71-78. PubMed ID: 29426786 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Fracture resistance of additive manufactured and milled implant-supported interim crowns. Martín-Ortega N; Sallorenzo A; Casajús J; Cervera A; Revilla-León M; Gómez-Polo M J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Feb; 127(2):267-274. PubMed ID: 33431173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. In vitro fit of CAD-CAM complete arch screw-retained titanium and zirconia implant prostheses fabricated on 4 implants. Al-Meraikhi H; Yilmaz B; McGlumphy E; Brantley W; Johnston WM J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Mar; 119(3):409-416. PubMed ID: 28720339 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Discrepancy at the implant abutment-prosthesis interface of complete-arch cobalt-chromium implant frameworks fabricated by additive and subtractive technologies before and after ceramic veneering. Revilla-León M; Sánchez-Rubio JL; Pérez-López J; Rubenstein J; Özcan M J Prosthet Dent; 2021 May; 125(5):795-803. PubMed ID: 32461043 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Strain development of screw-retained implant-supported fixed restorations: procera implant bridge versus conventionally cast restorations. Karl M; Holst S Int J Prosthodont; 2012; 25(2):166-9. PubMed ID: 22371839 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lemos CA; de Souza Batista VE; Almeida DA; Santiago Júnior JF; Verri FR; Pellizzer EP J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Apr; 115(4):419-27. PubMed ID: 26589441 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Discrepancy of complete-arch titanium frameworks manufactured using selective laser melting and electron beam melting additive manufacturing technologies. Revilla-León M; Ceballos L; Martínez-Klemm I; Özcan M J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):942-947. PubMed ID: 30006219 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Production tolerance of conventional and digital workflow in the manufacturing of glass ceramic crowns. Mahmood DJH; Braian M; Larsson C; Wennerberg A Dent Mater; 2019 Mar; 35(3):486-494. PubMed ID: 30686710 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]