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.
158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36340520)
1. Accuracy of the Different Materials Used to Fabricate a Verification Jig of Implant-Supported Fixed Complete Dental Prostheses: An In Vitro Study. Aljohani MS; Bukhari HA; Alshehri M; Alamoudi A Cureus; 2022 Sep; 14(9):e29794. PubMed ID: 36340520 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Verification jig for implant-supported prostheses: A comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials. De La Cruz JE; Funkenbusch PD; Ercoli C; Moss ME; Graser GN; Tallents RH J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Sep; 88(3):329-36. PubMed ID: 12426505 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Digital Evaluation of Three Splinting Materials Used to Fabricate Verification Jigs for Full-Arch Implant Prostheses: A Comparative Study. Papaspyridakos P; Kim YJ; Finkelman M; El-Rafie K; Weber HP J Esthet Restor Dent; 2017 Apr; 29(2):102-109. PubMed ID: 27767256 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Fit of implant-supported fixed prostheses fabricated on master casts made from a dental stone and a dental plaster. Wise M J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Nov; 86(5):532-8. PubMed ID: 11725282 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit. Papaspyridakos P; Hirayama H; Chen CJ; Ho CH; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Sep; 27(9):1099-105. PubMed ID: 26374268 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques on the accuracy of fit of fixed implant prostheses in edentulous patients: a comparative study. Papaspyridakos P; Lal K; White GS; Weber HP; Gallucci GO Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(6):1267-72. PubMed ID: 22167432 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The influence of verification jig on framework fit for nonsegmented fixed implant-supported complete denture. Ercoli C; Geminiani A; Feng C; Lee H Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 May; 14 Suppl 1():e188-95. PubMed ID: 22176765 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Accuracy of implant casts generated with splinted and non-splinted impression techniques for edentulous patients: an optical scanning study. Papaspyridakos P; Benic GI; Hogsett VL; White GS; Lal K; Gallucci GO Clin Oral Implants Res; 2012 Jun; 23(6):676-681. PubMed ID: 21631595 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparative evaluation of photogrammetry software programs and conventional impression techniques for the fabrication of nasal maxillofacial prostheses. Buzayan MM; Elkezza AH; Ahmad SF; Mohd Salleh N; Sivakumar I J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Sep; ():. PubMed ID: 37748996 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Lin WS; Harris BT; Elathamna EN; Abdel-Azim T; Morton D Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(1):102-9. PubMed ID: 25615919 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions. Vigolo P; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):186-92. PubMed ID: 12616240 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts. Buda M; Bratos M; Sorensen JA J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):913-918. PubMed ID: 29961627 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Trueness of 3-dimensionally printed complete arch implant analog casts. Gagnon-Audet A; An H; Jensen UF; Bratos M; Sorensen JA J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Aug; ():. PubMed ID: 37558526 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis. Del'Acqua MA; Arioli-Filho JN; Compagnoni MA; Mollo Fde A Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(2):226-36. PubMed ID: 18548918 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Altered reverse impression method involving extraoral digitalization of a verification jig for the fabrication of implant-supported prosthesis by using a complete-digital workflow. Rosmaninho A; Vedovato E; Kois JC; Revilla-León M J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Apr; 36(4):566-572. PubMed ID: 37882153 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Digital workflow: In vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans. Papaspyridakos P; Chen YW; Alshawaf B; Kang K; Finkelman M; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Nov; 124(5):589-593. PubMed ID: 31959396 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations. Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Discrepancy of complete-arch titanium frameworks manufactured using selective laser melting and electron beam melting additive manufacturing technologies. Revilla-León M; Ceballos L; Martínez-Klemm I; Özcan M J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):942-947. PubMed ID: 30006219 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]