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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36473749)

  • 21. Accuracy of digital complete-arch, multi-implant scans made in the edentulous jaw with gingival movement simulation: An in vitro study.
    Knechtle N; Wiedemeier D; Mehl A; Ender A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):468-478. PubMed ID: 33612335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Digital vs Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Retrospective Analysis of 36 Edentulous Jaws.
    Papaspyridakos P; De Souza A; Finkelman M; Sicilia E; Gotsis S; Chen YW; Vazouras K; Chochlidakis K
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Apr; 32(4):325-330. PubMed ID: 35524647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. [Method and accuracy of determining the jaw position of repositioning splint with the aid of digital technique].
    Fang SB; Yang GJ; Kang YF; Sun YC; Xie QF
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Dec; 53(1):76-82. PubMed ID: 33550339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods.
    Cho SH; Schaefer O; Thompson GA; Guentsch A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Apr; 113(4):310-5. PubMed ID: 25682531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. [Accuracy of intercuspal occlusion in 3D reconstruction with the dental articulator position method].
    Li LL; Zhao YJ; Chen H; Wang Y; Sun YC
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Feb; 52(1):138-143. PubMed ID: 32071477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual edentulous casts created by laboratory impression scan protocols.
    Peng L; Chen L; Harris BT; Bhandari B; Morton D; Lin WS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Sep; 120(3):389-395. PubMed ID: 29703675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Optimal Use of Physical Centric Relation Records for Digital Workflows.
    Osnes C; Patel J; Wagstaff A; Ferrari M; Keeling A
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2021 Nov; 29(4):223-229. PubMed ID: 34218536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Cast articulation accuracy using rigid cast stabilization.
    Gunderson RB; Siegel SC
    J Prosthodont; 2002 Jun; 11(2):117-21. PubMed ID: 12087549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. In-vitro accuracy of casts for orthodontic purposes obtained by a conventional and by a printer workflow.
    Reich S; Herstell H; Raith S; Kühne C; Berndt S
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(3):e0282840. PubMed ID: 36920945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The Accuracy of Transferring Casts in Maximal Intercuspal Position to a Virtual Articulator.
    He M; Ding Q; Li L; Yang G; Zhao Y; Sun Y; Zhang L
    J Prosthodont; 2022 Apr; 31(4):326-332. PubMed ID: 34196456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Dimensional accuracy of microcomputed tomography-scanned half-arch impressions.
    Kerr M; Park N; Leeson D; Nikolskiy S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 May; 121(5):797-802. PubMed ID: 30617030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. An Indirect Digital Technique to Transfer 3D Printed Casts to a Mechanical Articulator With Individual Sagittal Condylar Inclination Settings Using CBCT and Intraoral Scans.
    Yang S; Dong B; Zhang Q; Li J; Yuan Q; Yue L
    J Prosthodont; 2022 Dec; 31(9):822-827. PubMed ID: 35864801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. A comparison of different methods and materials for establishing maximal intercuspal position: A clinical study.
    van den Bergh HT; Owen CP; Howes DG
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Oct; 132(4):749-754. PubMed ID: 36184310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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