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 *

146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35977883)

  • 1. The trueness of scans using one intraoral scanner in different partially edentulous conditions.
    Majeed-Saidan A; Dutra V; Levon JA; Chu TG; Morton D; Alfaraj A; Lin WS
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Aug; 32(7):588-593. PubMed ID: 35977883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. In vivo trueness and precision of full-arch implant scans using intraoral scanners with three different acquisition protocols.
    Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Thulin M; Nyström I; Thor A
    J Dent; 2023 Jan; 128():104308. PubMed ID: 36481688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques.
    Lyu M; Di P; Lin Y; Jiang X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1017-1023. PubMed ID: 33640093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of impression-making methods in edentulous arches: An in vitro study encompassing conventional and digital methods.
    Li J; Moon HS; Kim JH; Yoon HI; Oh KC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):479-486. PubMed ID: 33583617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Understanding the effect of scan spans on the accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners.
    Chen Y; Zhai Z; Watanabe S; Nakano T; Ishigaki S
    J Dent; 2022 Sep; 124():104220. PubMed ID: 35817227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of splinting scan bodies on trueness of complete-arch implant impression using different intraoral scanners: an in vitro study.
    Retana L; Nejat AH; Pozzi A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2023 Feb; 26(1):19-28. PubMed ID: 35072425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Prosthesis accuracy of fit on 3D-printed casts versus stone casts: A comparative study in the anterior maxilla.
    Abdeen L; Chen YW; Kostagianni A; Finkelman M; Papathanasiou A; Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2022 Dec; 34(8):1238-1246. PubMed ID: 36415927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy of Digital Impressions at Varying Implant Depths: An In Vitro Study.
    Sequeira V; Harper MT; Lilly CL; Bryington MS
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Jan; 32(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 35191128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The trueness of an intraoral scanner in scanning different post space depths.
    Elter B; Diker B; Tak Ö
    J Dent; 2022 Dec; 127():104352. PubMed ID: 36334784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of additional reference objects on accuracy of five intraoral scanners in partially and completely edentulous jaws: An in vitro study.
    Rutkūnas V; Gedrimienė A; Al-Haj Husain N; Pletkus J; Barauskis D; Jegelevičius D; Özcan M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jul; 130(1):111-118. PubMed ID: 34799084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy of six intraoral scanners for scanning complete-arch and 4-unit fixed partial dentures: An in vitro study.
    Diker B; Tak Ö
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Aug; 128(2):187-194. PubMed ID: 33558056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of different artificial landmarks and scanning patterns on the complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans.
    Kanjanasavitree P; Thammajaruk P; Guazzato M
    J Dent; 2022 Oct; 125():104266. PubMed ID: 35995084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Intaglio surface trueness of milled and 3D-printed digital maxillary and mandibular dentures: A clinical study.
    Lo Russo L; Guida L; Zhurakivska K; Troiano G; Chochlidakis K; Ercoli C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jan; 129(1):131-139. PubMed ID: 34116839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of printing layer thickness on the trueness and fit of additively manufactured removable dies.
    Yilmaz B; Donmez MB; Kahveci Ç; Cuellar AR; de Paula MS; Schimmel M; Abou-Ayash S; Çakmak G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Dec; 128(6):1318.e1-1318.e9. PubMed ID: 36435670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Accuracy of three digital scanning methods for complete-arch tooth preparation: An in vitro comparison.
    Gao H; Liu X; Liu M; Yang X; Tan J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1001-1008. PubMed ID: 33736864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The effects of manufacturing technologies on the surface accuracy of CAD-CAM occlusal splints.
    Orgev A; Levon JA; Chu TG; Morton D; Lin WS
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Oct; 32(8):697-705. PubMed ID: 36227731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. In vitro scanning accuracy using different aids for multiple implants in the edentulous arch.
    Kernen FR; Recca M; Vach K; Nahles S; Nelson K; Flügge TV
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2022 Oct; 33(10):1010-1020. PubMed ID: 35861128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial.
    Dohiem MM; Abdelaziz MS; Abdalla MF; Fawzy AM
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Nov; 22(1):486. PubMed ID: 36371189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.