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.
141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36115710)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Does the available interocclusal space influence the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship captured with an intraoral scanner? Revilla-León M; Gómez-Polo M; Zeitler JM; Barmak AB; Kois JC; Pérez-Barquero JA J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Aug; 132(2):435-440. PubMed ID: 36349566 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Influence of occlusal collision corrections completed by two intraoral scanners or a dental design program on the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship. Revilla-León M; Gómez-Polo M; Barmak AB; Kois JC; Yilmaz B; Alonso Pérez-Barquero J J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jul; 132(1):191-203. PubMed ID: 37365066 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Clinical evaluation of the precision of interocclusal registration by using digital and conventional techniques. Iwauchi Y; Tanaka S; Kamimura-Sugimura E; Baba K J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Oct; 128(4):611-617. PubMed ID: 33775391 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. [Scan time and accuracy of full-arch scans with intraoral scanners: a comparative study on conditions of the intraoral head-simulator and the hand-held model]. Wu MT; Tang SX; Peng LY; Han YT; Su YC; Wang X Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2021 Jun; 56(6):570-575. PubMed ID: 34098673 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparing maximum intercuspal contacts of virtual dental patients and mounted dental casts. Delong R; Ko CC; Anderson GC; Hodges JS; Douglas WH J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Dec; 88(6):622-30. PubMed ID: 12488856 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Influence of rescanning mesh holes and stitching procedures on the complete-arch scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vitro study. Gómez-Polo M; Piedra-Cascón W; Methani MM; Quesada-Olmo N; Farjas-Abadia M; Revilla-León M J Dent; 2021 Jul; 110():103690. PubMed ID: 33991598 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Analysis of the impact of the facial scanning method on the precision of a virtual facebow record technique: An in vivo study. Amezua X; Iturrate M; Garikano X; Solaberrieta E J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Sep; 130(3):382-391. PubMed ID: 34916065 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Accuracy and precision of occlusal contacts of stereolithographic casts mounted by digital interocclusal registrations. Krahenbuhl JT; Cho SH; Irelan J; Bansal NK J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Aug; 116(2):231-6. PubMed ID: 27068319 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Error propagation from intraoral scanning to additive manufacturing of complete-arch dentate models: An in vitro study. Auškalnis L; Akulauskas M; Jegelevičius D; Simonaitis T; Rutkūnas V J Dent; 2022 Jun; 121():104136. PubMed ID: 35460866 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Trueness of 4 sectional-cast digital methods for transferring the interocclusal relationship in complete mouth rehabilitation. Gao H; Liu X; Zhou T; Tan J J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Sep; ():. PubMed ID: 37696746 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]