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 *

198 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36068382)

  • 1. Comparison of the dimensional and morphological accuracy of three-dimensional digital dental casts digitized using different methods.
    Ye J; Wang S; Wang Z; Liu Y; Sun Y; Ye H; Zhou Y
    Odontology; 2023 Jan; 111(1):165-171. PubMed ID: 36068382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Comparison of intraoral scanning and CBCT to generate digital and 3D-printed casts by fused deposition modeling and digital light processing.
    de Freitas BN; Mendonça LM; Cruvinel PB; de Lacerda TJ; Leite FGJ; Oliveira-Santos C; Tirapelli C
    J Dent; 2023 Jan; 128():104387. PubMed ID: 36496106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Exploring a new method for superimposition of pre-treatment and post-treatment mandibular digital dental casts in adults].
    Dai FF; Liu Y; Xu TM; Chen G
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2018 Apr; 50(2):271-278. PubMed ID: 29643526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of IOS in Full-Arch Dentate Patients Compared to CBCT Cast-Scanning. An In-Vivo Study.
    Michelinakis G; Apostolakis D; Pavlakis E; Kourakis G; Papavasiliou G
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2019 Aug; 27(3):122-130. PubMed ID: 31433136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study.
    Alshawaf B; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):835-842. PubMed ID: 29926977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 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 3D Printed and Digital Casts Produced from Intraoral and Extraoral Scanners with Different Scanning Technologies: In Vitro Study.
    Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
    J Prosthodont; 2022 Jul; 31(6):521-528. PubMed ID: 34661950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Three-dimensional analysis of the accuracy of conventional and completely digital interocclusal registration methods.
    Ries JM; Grünler C; Wichmann M; Matta RE
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):994-1000. PubMed ID: 33888327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Influence of the Number of Teeth and Location of the Virtual Occlusal Record on the Accuracy of the Maxillo-Mandibular Relationship Obtained by Using An Intraoral Scanner.
    Revilla-León M; Alonso Pérez-Barquero J; Zubizarreta-Macho Á; Barmak AB; Att W; Kois JC
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Mar; 32(3):253-258. PubMed ID: 35448911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual edentulous casts created by laboratory impression scan protocols.
    Peng L; Chen L; Harris BT; Bhandari B; Morton D; Lin WS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):389-395. PubMed ID: 29703675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and 3D-printed casts compared with conventional stone casts.
    Ellakany P; Al-Harbi F; El Tantawi M; Mohsen C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Mar; 127(3):438-444. PubMed ID: 33308856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Surgical accuracy in 3D planned bimaxillary osteotomies: intraoral scans and plaster casts as digital dentition models.
    Beek DM; Baan F; Liebregts J; Bergé S; Maal T; Xi T
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2022 Jul; 51(7):922-928. PubMed ID: 34952772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Digital mounting accuracy of 2 intraoral scanners with a single anterior or bilateral posterior occlusal scan: A three-dimensional analysis.
    Cha C; Pyo SW; Chang JS; Kim S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Oct; 130(4):612.e1-612.e8. PubMed ID: 37633731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Accuracy and eligibility of CBCT to digitize dental plaster casts.
    Becker K; Schmücker U; Schwarz F; Drescher D
    Clin Oral Investig; 2018 May; 22(4):1817-1823. PubMed ID: 29196949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of repeatability of different alignment methods to obtain digital interocclusal records: An in vitro study.
    Garikano X; Amezua X; Iturrate M; Solaberrieta E
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Apr; 131(4):709-717. PubMed ID: 36115710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.