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 *

175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35527511)

  • 1. Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: A systematic review.
    Schmidt A; Wöstmann B; Schlenz MA
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2022 Jun; 33(6):573-585. PubMed ID: 35527511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review.
    Rutkūnas V; Gečiauskaitė A; Jegelevičius D; Vaitiekūnas M
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2017; 10 Suppl 1():101-120. PubMed ID: 28944372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Flügge T; van der Meer WJ; Gonzalez BG; Vach K; Wismeijer D; Wang P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():374-392. PubMed ID: 30328182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: A systematic review.
    Zhang YJ; Shi JY; Qian SJ; Qiao SC; Lai HC
    Int J Oral Implantol (Berl); 2021 May; 14(2):157-179. PubMed ID: 34006079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Papaspyridakos P; Vazouras K; Chen YW; Kotina E; Natto Z; Kang K; Chochlidakis K
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Oct; 29(8):660-678. PubMed ID: 32613641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.
    Albanchez-González MI; Brinkmann JC; Peláez-Rico J; López-Suárez C; Rodríguez-Alonso V; Suárez-García MJ
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022 Feb; 19(4):. PubMed ID: 35206217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions.
    Albayrak B; Sukotjo C; Wee AG; Korkmaz İH; Bayındır F
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Feb; 30(2):163-170. PubMed ID: 32935894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry.
    Sawase T; Kuroshima S
    Dent Mater J; 2020 Jan; 39(1):57-61. PubMed ID: 31723067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review.
    Michelinakis G; Apostolakis D; Kamposiora P; Papavasiliou G; Özcan M
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Jan; 21(1):37. PubMed ID: 33478459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method.
    Schmidt A; Rein PE; Wöstmann B; Schlenz MA
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2021 Apr; 32(4):460-469. PubMed ID: 33469983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: Part 2-Patient factors.
    Revilla-León M; Kois DE; Kois JC
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2023 Jan; 35(1):241-249. PubMed ID: 36639916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch.
    Tan MY; Yee SHX; Wong KM; Tan YH; Tan KBC
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(2):366–380. PubMed ID: 30521661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.
    Marghalani A; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Kudara Y; El Rafie K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579. PubMed ID: 28927923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.
    Ender A; Zimmermann M; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2019; 22(1):11-19. PubMed ID: 30848250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Accuracy of Digital Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.
    Giachetti L; Sarti C; Cinelli F; Russo DS
    Int J Prosthodont; 2020; 33(2):192-201. PubMed ID: 32069344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Digital Impressions in Implant Dentistry: A Literature Review.
    Marques S; Ribeiro P; Falcão C; Lemos BF; Ríos-Carrasco B; Ríos-Santos JV; Herrero-Climent M
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 Jan; 18(3):. PubMed ID: 33498902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.
    Amin S; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Nov; 28(11):1360-1367. PubMed ID: 28039903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.
    Papaspyridakos P; Gallucci GO; Chen CJ; Hanssen S; Naert I; Vandenberghe B
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Apr; 27(4):465-72. PubMed ID: 25682892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with or without scanbody splinting: An in vitro study.
    Pozzi A; Arcuri L; Lio F; Papa A; Nardi A; Londono J
    J Dent; 2022 Apr; 119():104072. PubMed ID: 35189313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study.
    Miyoshi K; Tanaka S; Yokoyama S; Sanda M; Baba K
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2020 Jan; 31(1):74-83. PubMed ID: 31608509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.