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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36456986)

  • 1. In vivo precision of digital static interocclusal registration for full arch and quadrant arch scans: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
    Morsy N; El Kateb M
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Dec; 22(1):559. PubMed ID: 36456986
    [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. 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]  

  • 4. The accuracy of virtual interocclusal registration during intraoral scanning.
    Edher F; Hannam AG; Tobias DL; Wyatt CCL
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):904-912. PubMed ID: 29961618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Accuracy comparison of bilateral versus complete arch interocclusal registration scans for virtual articulation.
    Lee JD; Luu D; Yoon TW; Lee SJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Feb; ():. PubMed ID: 36813588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.
    Ender A; Zimmermann M; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2019; 22(1):11-19. PubMed ID: 30848250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions for Whole Upper Jaws, Including Full Dentitions and Palatal Soft Tissues.
    Gan N; Xiong Y; Jiao T
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(7):e0158800. PubMed ID: 27383409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sources of error in maximum intercuspation from complete dentate full-arch intraoral scans in vitro.
    Osnes C; Wu J; Ferrari M; Joda T; Keeling A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2021 Sep; 24(3):283-291. PubMed ID: 34553893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Static Interocclusal Registration by Three Intraoral Scanner Systems.
    Wong KY; Esguerra RJ; Chia VAP; Tan YH; Tan KBC
    J Prosthodont; 2018 Feb; 27(2):120-128. PubMed ID: 29160904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of occlusal contacts in maximum intercuspation for two impression techniques.
    Parker MH; Cameron SM; Hughbanks JC; Reid DE
    J Prosthet Dent; 1997 Sep; 78(3):255-9. PubMed ID: 9297641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Three-Dimensional Static Articulation Accuracy of Virtual Models-Part II: Effect of Model Scanner-CAD Systems and Articulation Method.
    Yee SHX; Esguerra RJ; Chew AAQ; Wong KM; Tan KBC
    J Prosthodont; 2018 Feb; 27(2):137-144. PubMed ID: 29210502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [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]  

  • 18. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae.
    Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P; Tsigarida A; Romeo D; Chen YW; Natto Z; Ercoli C
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Apr; 29(4):281-286. PubMed ID: 32166793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner.
    Revilla-León M; Subramanian SG; Özcan M; Krishnamurthy VR
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Feb; 29(2):107-113. PubMed ID: 31860144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.