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 *

247 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36117136)

  • 1. Accuracy of digital auricular impression using intraoral scanner versus conventional impression technique for ear rehabilitation: A controlled clinical trial.
    Dohiem MM; Emam NS; Abdallah MF; Abdelaziz MS
    J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg; 2022 Nov; 75(11):4254-4263. PubMed ID: 36117136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of the accuracy of direct intraoral scanner impressions for digital post and core in various post lengths: An in-vitro study.
    Almalki A; Conejo J; Kutkut N; Blatz M; Hai Q; Anadioti E
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Apr; 36(4):673-679. PubMed ID: 37921014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning.
    Tomita Y; Uechi J; Konno M; Sasamoto S; Iijima M; Mizoguchi I
    Dent Mater J; 2018 Jul; 37(4):628-633. PubMed ID: 29669951
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 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. Digital Workflow of Auricular Rehabilitation: A Technical Report Using an Intraoral Scanner.
    Ballo AM; Nguyen CT; Lee VSK
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Jun; 28(5):596-600. PubMed ID: 30887663
    [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 abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.
    Carbajal Mejía JB; Wakabayashi K; Nakamura T; Yatani H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):392-399. PubMed ID: 28222873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. [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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Comparative analysis on efficiency and accuracy of parallel confocal microscopy and three-dimensional in motion video with triangulation technology-based intraoral scanner under influence of moisture and mouth opening - A crossover clinical trial.
    Sindhu JS; Maiti S; Nallaswamy D
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2023; 23(3):234-243. PubMed ID: 37929362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison.
    Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Nyström I; Thor A
    BMC Oral Health; 2018 Feb; 18(1):27. PubMed ID: 29471825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of accuracy of photogrammetry with 3D scanning and conventional impression method for craniomaxillofacial defects using a software analysis.
    Beri A; Pisulkar SK; Bagde AD; Bansod A; Dahihandekar C; Paikrao B
    Trials; 2022 Dec; 23(1):1048. PubMed ID: 36575547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method.
    Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Nyström I; Rydén J; Thor A
    J Dent; 2018 Feb; 69():110-118. PubMed ID: 29246490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparative analysis of intraoral scanners accuracy using 3D software: an in vivo study.
    Pellitteri F; Albertini P; Vogrig A; Spedicato GA; Siciliani G; Lombardo L
    Prog Orthod; 2022 Jul; 23(1):21. PubMed ID: 35781850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.