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 *

174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36716787)

  • 1. Linear Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Impressions of Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Floriani F; Lopes GC; Cabrera A; Duarte W; Zoidis P; Oliveira D; Rocha MG
    Eur J Dent; 2023 Oct; 17(4):964-973. PubMed ID: 36716787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: A systematic review.
    Zhang YJ; Shi JY; Qian SJ; Qiao SC; Lai HC
    Int J Oral Implantol (Berl); 2021 May; 14(2):157-179. PubMed ID: 34006079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accuracy of digital implant impressions obtained using intraoral scanners: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies.
    Ma J; Zhang B; Song H; Wu D; Song T
    Int J Implant Dent; 2023 Dec; 9(1):48. PubMed ID: 38055096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners.
    Di Fiore A; Meneghello R; Graiff L; Savio G; Vigolo P; Monaco C; Stellini E
    J Prosthodont Res; 2019 Oct; 63(4):396-403. PubMed ID: 31072730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review.
    Rutkūnas V; Gečiauskaitė A; Jegelevičius D; Vaitiekūnas M
    Eur J Oral Implantol; 2017; 10 Suppl 1():101-120. PubMed ID: 28944372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.
    Marghalani A; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Kudara Y; El Rafie K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579. PubMed ID: 28927923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Flügge T; van der Meer WJ; Gonzalez BG; Vach K; Wismeijer D; Wang P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():374-392. PubMed ID: 30328182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with intraoral optical scanning and stereophotogrammetry: An in vivo prospective comparative study.
    Pozzi A; Carosi P; Gallucci GO; Nagy K; Nardi A; Arcuri L
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2023 Oct; 34(10):1106-1117. PubMed ID: 37485737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Conventional and digital complete arch implant impression techniques: An in vitro study comparing accuracy.
    Gómez-Polo M; Sallorenzo A; Cascos R; Ballesteros J; Barmak AB; Revilla-León M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Oct; 132(4):809-818. PubMed ID: 36539313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine.
    Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Evaluation of the accuracy of direct intraoral scanner impressions for digital post and core in various post lengths: An in-vitro study.
    Almalki A; Conejo J; Kutkut N; Blatz M; Hai Q; Anadioti E
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Apr; 36(4):673-679. PubMed ID: 37921014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. ACCURACY OF INTRAORAL SCANNERS VERSUS TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS: A RAPID UMBRELLA REVIEW.
    Afrashtehfar KI; Alnakeb NA; Assery MKM
    J Evid Based Dent Pract; 2022 Sep; 22(3):101719. PubMed ID: 36162879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Fit of complete-arch implant-supported prostheses produced from an intraoral scan by using an auxiliary device and from an elastomeric impression: A pilot clinical trial.
    Roig E; Roig M; Garza LC; Costa S; Maia P; Espona J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):404-414. PubMed ID: 33610331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Papaspyridakos P; Vazouras K; Chen YW; Kotina E; Natto Z; Kang K; Chochlidakis K
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Oct; 29(8):660-678. PubMed ID: 32613641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle.
    Nagata K; Fuchigami K; Okuhama Y; Wakamori K; Tsuruoka H; Nakashizu T; Hoshi N; Atsumi M; Kimoto K; Kawana H
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Sep; 21(1):464. PubMed ID: 34556111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.