339 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36511075)
1. Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An
Shaikh M; Lakha T; Kheur S; Qamri B; Kheur M
J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2022; 22(4):398-404. PubMed ID: 36511075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An in vitro study.
El Osta N; Drancourt N; Auduc C; Veyrune JL; Nicolas E
J Dent; 2024 Apr; 143():104892. PubMed ID: 38367825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Influence of scanbody design and intraoral scanner on the trueness of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study.
Meneghetti PC; Li J; Borella PS; Mendonça G; Burnett LH
PLoS One; 2023; 18(12):e0295790. PubMed ID: 38113200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. [Accuracy of three intraoral scans for primary impressions of edentulous jaws].
Cao Y; Chen JK; Deng KH; Wang Y; Sun YC; Zhao YJ
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Feb; 52(1):129-137. PubMed ID: 32071476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An in vitro study.
Ke Y; Zhang Y; Wang Y; Chen H; Sun Y
J Dent; 2023 Aug; 135():104561. PubMed ID: 37236297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study.
Vandeweghe S; Vervack V; Dierens M; De Bruyn H
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Jun; 28(6):648-653. PubMed ID: 27150731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. TRUENESS OF INTRAORAL SCANNERS IN DIFFERENT SCAN PATTERNS FOR FULL-ARCH DIGITAL IMPLANT IMPRESSIONS.
Sezer T; Esim E; Yılmaz E
J Oral Implantol; 2024 May; ():. PubMed ID: 38733201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans.
Resende CCD; Barbosa TAQ; Moura GF; Tavares LDN; Rizzante FAP; George FM; Neves FDD; Mendonça G
J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Feb; 125(2):294-299. PubMed ID: 32115221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence.
Diker B; Tak Ö
Int J Prosthodont; 2021; 34(1):101-108. PubMed ID: 33570525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.
Amin S; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Nov; 28(11):1360-1367. PubMed ID: 28039903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete arch-fixed prosthesis: An in vitro study.
Kosago P; Ungurawasaporn C; Kukiattrakoon B
J Prosthodont; 2023 Aug; 32(7):616-624. PubMed ID: 36083233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Scanning accuracy with splinted and unsplinted implant scan bodies for the edentulous arch at implant level: an in vitro study.
Garbacea A; Alqahtani AF; Goodacre B; Alhelal A; Lozada J; Kattadiyil MT
J Oral Implantol; 2022 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 35816623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques.
Lyu M; Di P; Lin Y; Jiang X
J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1017-1023. PubMed ID: 33640093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study.
Alkindi S; Hamdoon Z; Aziz AM
J Dent; 2024 Jul; 146():105045. PubMed ID: 38714241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of additional reference objects on accuracy of five intraoral scanners in partially and completely edentulous jaws: An in vitro study.
Rutkūnas V; Gedrimienė A; Al-Haj Husain N; Pletkus J; Barauskis D; Jegelevičius D; Özcan M
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jul; 130(1):111-118. PubMed ID: 34799084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of Scan Pattern on the Accuracy of Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impressions with Two Intraoral Scanners.
Li Z; Huang R; Wu X; Chen Z; Huang B; Chen Z
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2022; 37(4):731-739. PubMed ID: 35904829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effect of different intraoral scanners and scanbody splinting on accuracy of scanning implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis.
Ashraf Y; Abo El Fadl A; Hamdy A; Ebeid K
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2023 Dec; 35(8):1257-1263. PubMed ID: 37310208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch impressions between three different intraoral scanners and conventional impressions: A prospective in vivo study.
Bhatia N; Muthuswamy Pandian S
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects; 2024; 18(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 38881640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
