139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36055812)
1. Fit and retention of complete denture bases: Part II - conventional impressions versus digital scans: A clinical controlled crossover study.
Chebib N; Imamura Y; El Osta N; Srinivasan M; Müller F; Maniewicz S
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Apr; 131(4):618-625. PubMed ID: 36055812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Fit and retention of complete denture bases: Part I - Conventional versus CAD-CAM methods: A clinical controlled crossover study.
Maniewicz S; Imamura Y; El Osta N; Srinivasan M; Müller F; Chebib N
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Apr; 131(4):611-617. PubMed ID: 36116950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Comparison of retention between maxillary milled and conventional denture bases: A clinical study.
AlHelal A; AlRumaih HS; Kattadiyil MT; Baba NZ; Goodacre CJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Feb; 117(2):233-238. PubMed ID: 27765399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of Dimensional Changes Between CAD-CAM Milled Complete Denture Bases and 3D Printed Complete Denture Bases: An In Vitro Study.
Helal MA; Abdelrahim RA; Zeidan AAE
J Prosthodont; 2023 Apr; 32(S1):11-19. PubMed ID: 35524633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of Denture Base Adaptation Fabricated Using Conventional, Subtractive, and Additive Technologies: A Volumetric Micro-Computed Tomography Analysis.
Oğuz Eİ; Kılıçarslan MA; Özcan M; Ocak M; Bilecenoğlu B; Orhan K
J Prosthodont; 2021 Mar; 30(3):257-263. PubMed ID: 33415779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Three-dimensional differences between intraoral scans and conventional impressions of edentulous jaws: A clinical study.
Lo Russo L; Caradonna G; Troiano G; Salamini A; Guida L; Ciavarella D
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Feb; 123(2):264-268. PubMed ID: 31153614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of the Adaptation of Complete Dentures Fabricated Using Intraoral Scanning and Conventional Techniques.
Masri G; Mortada R; Hatoum K; Al Harbi N; Boulos P; Salameh Z
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2020 Dec; 21(12):1384-1388. PubMed ID: 33893263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. CAD-CAM milled versus rapidly prototyped (3D-printed) complete dentures: An in vitro evaluation of trueness.
Kalberer N; Mehl A; Schimmel M; Müller F; Srinivasan M
J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Apr; 121(4):637-643. PubMed ID: 30711292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Effects of denture adhesive on the retention of milled and heat-activated maxillary denture bases: A clinical study.
AlRumaih HS; AlHelal A; Baba NZ; Goodacre CJ; Al-Qahtani A; Kattadiyil MT
J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):361-366. PubMed ID: 29551377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Adaptation of Complete Denture Base Fabricated by Conventional, Milling, and 3-D Printing Techniques: An
Masri G; Mortada R; Ounsi H; Alharbi N; Boulos P; Salameh Z
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2020 Apr; 21(4):367-371. PubMed ID: 32584270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression.
Kim KR; Seo KY; Kim S
J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Dec; 122(6):543-549. PubMed ID: 30955939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation and Comparison of the Effect of Different Border Molding Materials on Complete Denture Retention: An in vivo Study.
Pachar RB; Singla Y; Kumar P
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Aug; 19(8):982-987. PubMed ID: 30150501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Positional trueness of abutments by using a digital die-merging protocol compared with complete arch direct digital scans and conventional dental impressions.
Jelicich A; Scialabba R; Lee SJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Feb; 131(2):293-300. PubMed ID: 35430047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Intaglio surface trueness of dentures bases fabricated with 3D printing vs. conventional workflow: a clinical study.
Faur AB; Rotar RN; Jivănescu A
BMC Oral Health; 2024 Jun; 24(1):671. PubMed ID: 38851680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Do hydrothermal aging and microwave sterilization affect the trueness of milled, additive manufactured and injection molded denture bases?
Wemken G; Spies BC; Pieralli S; Adali U; Beuer F; Wesemann C
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2020 Nov; 111():103975. PubMed ID: 32781402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
