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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36184310)

  • 21. Evaluating the Effect of Different Impression Techniques and Splinting Methods on the Dimensional Accuracy of Multiple Implant Impressions: An in vitro Study.
    Saini HS; Jain S; Kumar S; Aggarwal R; Choudhary S; Reddy NK
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2018 Aug; 19(8):1005-1012. PubMed ID: 30150505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Clinical factors and clinical variation influencing the reproducibility of interocclusal recording methods.
    Eriksson A; Ockert-Eriksson G; Lockowandt P; Eriksson O
    Br Dent J; 2002 Apr; 192(7):395-400; discussion 391. PubMed ID: 12017459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Comparison of Dimensional Accuracy of Three Different Impression Materials Using Three Different Techniques for Implant Impressions: An
    Khan SA; Singh S; Neyaz N; Jaiswal MM; Tanwar AS; Singh A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2021 Feb; 22(2):172-178. PubMed ID: 34257178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Effect of polyvinyl siloxane impression material on the polymerization of composite resin.
    Chen L; Kleverlaan CJ; Liang K; Yang D
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Apr; 117(4):552-558. PubMed ID: 27765393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Accuracy of contacts calculated from 3D images of occlusal surfaces.
    DeLong R; Knorr S; Anderson GC; Hodges J; Pintado MR
    J Dent; 2007 Jun; 35(6):528-34. PubMed ID: 17418474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Digital Evaluation of Trueness and Precision of Modern Impression Materials in Implant- Retained Mandibular Overdentures.
    Ghanem RG; Badr AMI; Agamy EMTM; Eyüboğlu TF; Özcan M
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2024 May; 32(2):183-193. PubMed ID: 38691584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients' preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material.
    Sakornwimon N; Leevailoj C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):386-391. PubMed ID: 28222872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Linear dimensional accuracy of a polyvinyl siloxane of varying viscosities using different impression techniques.
    Mishra S; Chowdhary R
    J Investig Clin Dent; 2010 Aug; 1(1):37-46. PubMed ID: 25427185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Influence of tray rigidity and impression technique on accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions.
    Hoyos A; Soderholm KJ
    Int J Prosthodont; 2011; 24(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 21210004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Materials for interocclusal records and their ability to reproduce a 3-dimensional jaw relationship.
    Ockert-Eriksson G; Eriksson A; Lockowandt P; Eriksson O
    Int J Prosthodont; 2000; 13(2):152-8. PubMed ID: 11203625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Working times and dimensional accuracy of the one-step putty/wash impression technique.
    Richards MW; Zeiaei S; Bagby MD; Okubo S; Soltani J
    J Prosthodont; 1998 Dec; 7(4):250-5. PubMed ID: 10196845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A comparative evaluation of tray spacer thickness and repeat pour on the accuracy of monophasic polyvinyl siloxane impression material: in vitro study.
    Kumar S; Yadav D; Yadav R; Arora A
    Indian J Dent Res; 2014; 25(2):184-7. PubMed ID: 24992848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Accuracy of impressions with different impression materials in angulated implants.
    Reddy S; Prasad K; Vakil H; Jain A; Chowdhary R
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2013; 16(3):279-84. PubMed ID: 23771446
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparison of accuracy in digital and conventional cross-mounting.
    Luu D; Kan E; Kim SW; Lee JD; Lee SJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Oct; 132(4):784-791. PubMed ID: 36473749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A technical and clinical digital approach to the altered cast technique with an intraoral scanner and polyvinyl siloxane impression material.
    Cameron AB; Evans JL; Robb ND
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Aug; 132(2):315-319. PubMed ID: 35850875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The effect of impression volume and double-arch trays on the registration of maximum intercuspation.
    Hahn SM; Millstein PL; Kinnunen TH; Wright RF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Dec; 102(6):362-7. PubMed ID: 19961994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Use of polyvinyl siloxane material for an altered cast impression tray.
    Hsu YT
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Sep; 112(3):695-6. PubMed ID: 24657176
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Evaluation of accuracy of complete-arch multiple-unit abutment-level dental implant impressions using different impression and splinting materials.
    Buzayan M; Baig MR; Yunus N
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(6):1512-20. PubMed ID: 24278919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Jaw relation records for fixed prosthodontics.
    Squier RS
    Dent Clin North Am; 2004 Apr; 48(2):vii, 471-86. PubMed ID: 15172611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions made with standard and reinforced stock trays.
    Wassell RW; Ibbetson RJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 1991 Jun; 65(6):748-57. PubMed ID: 2072315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.