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.
178 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36334784)
21. The trueness of scans using one intraoral scanner in different partially edentulous conditions. Majeed-Saidan A; Dutra V; Levon JA; Chu TG; Morton D; Alfaraj A; Lin WS J Prosthodont; 2023 Aug; 32(7):588-593. PubMed ID: 35977883 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Effect of splinting scan bodies on trueness of complete-arch implant impression using different intraoral scanners: an in vitro study. Retana L; Nejat AH; Pozzi A Int J Comput Dent; 2023 Feb; 26(1):19-28. PubMed ID: 35072425 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Understanding the effect of scan spans on the accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners. Chen Y; Zhai Z; Watanabe S; Nakano T; Ishigaki S J Dent; 2022 Sep; 124():104220. PubMed ID: 35817227 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Evaluation of trueness and precision of two intraoral scanners and a conventional impression: an in vivo clinical study. Jorquera GJ; Sampaio CS; Bozzalla A; Hirata R; Sánchez JP Quintessence Int; 2021 Oct; 52(10):904-910. PubMed ID: 34410071 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions. Albayrak B; Sukotjo C; Wee AG; Korkmaz İH; Bayındır F J Prosthodont; 2021 Feb; 30(2):163-170. PubMed ID: 32935894 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Accuracy assessment (trueness and precision) of a confocal based intraoral scanner under twelve different ambient lighting conditions. Piedra-Cascón W; Adhikari RR; Özcan M; Krishnamurthy VR; Revilla-León M; Gallas-Torreira M J Dent; 2023 Jul; 134():104530. PubMed ID: 37116740 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Influence of interdental spaces and the palate on the accuracy of maxillary scans acquired using different intraoral scanners. Akl MA; Daifallah K; Pérez-Barquero JA; Barmak AB; Wee AG; Revilla-León M J Prosthodont; 2023 Dec; 32(S2):125-134. PubMed ID: 37591814 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Effect of cut-out rescan procedures on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner used for digitizing an ear model: An in vitro study. Ali IE; Hattori M; Sumita YI; Wakabayashi N J Prosthodont; 2023 Jul; 32(6):527-533. PubMed ID: 35964239 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Digital impressions' accuracy through "cut-out-rescan" and "data exchange by over scanning" techniques in complete arches of two intraoral scanners and CAD/CAM software. Passos L; Meiga S; Brigagão V; Neumann M; Street A J Prosthodont Res; 2022 Jul; 66(3):509-513. PubMed ID: 34789607 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. Revilla-León M; Jiang P; Sadeghpour M; Piedra-Cascón W; Zandinejad A; Özcan M; Krishnamurthy VR J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Sep; 124(3):372-378. PubMed ID: 31864638 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Trueness evaluation of digital impression: The impact of the selection of reference and test object. Yatmaz BB; Raith S; Reich S J Dent; 2021 Aug; 111():103706. PubMed ID: 34077800 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Influence of age, training, intraoral scanner, and software version on the scan accuracy of inexperienced operators. Zarauz C; Pradíes GJ; Chebib N; Dönmez MB; Karasan D; Sailer I J Prosthodont; 2023 Dec; 32(S2):135-141. PubMed ID: 37837217 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Trueness of intraoral scanning of edentulous arches: A comparative clinical study. Al Hamad KQ; Al-Kaff FT J Prosthodont; 2023 Jan; 32(1):26-31. PubMed ID: 35997079 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Evaluating the Effect of Ambient and Scanning Lights on the Trueness of the Intraoral Scanner. Koseoglu M; Kahramanoglu E; Akin H J Prosthodont; 2021 Dec; 30(9):811-816. PubMed ID: 33533100 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible. Hayama H; Fueki K; Wadachi J; Wakabayashi N J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Jul; 62(3):347-352. PubMed ID: 29502933 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Effect of pulp chamber depth on the accuracy of endocrown scans made with different intraoral scanners versus an industrial scanner: An in vitro study. Gurpinar B; Tak O J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Mar; 127(3):430-437. PubMed ID: 33309210 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]