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: 36815624)

  • 1. Intraoral optical impression versus conventional impression for fully edentulous maxilla: an in vivo comparative study.
    Willmann C; Deschamps A; Taddei-Gross C; Musset AM; Lai C; Etienne O
    Int J Comput Dent; 2024 Mar; 27(1):19-26. PubMed ID: 36815624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of impression-making methods in edentulous arches: An in vitro study encompassing conventional and digital methods.
    Li J; Moon HS; Kim JH; Yoon HI; Oh KC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):479-486. PubMed ID: 33583617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accuracy of a chairside intraoral scanner compared with a laboratory scanner for the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro 3-dimensional comparative analysis.
    Zarone F; Ruggiero G; Ferrari M; Mangano F; Joda T; Sorrentino R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Dec; 124(6):761.e1-761.e7. PubMed ID: 33289647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.
    Papaspyridakos P; Gallucci GO; Chen CJ; Hanssen S; Naert I; Vandenberghe B
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Apr; 27(4):465-72. PubMed ID: 25682892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Computerized optical impression making of edentulous jaws - An in vivo feasibility study.
    Hack G; Liberman L; Vach K; Tchorz JP; Kohal RJ; Patzelt SBM
    J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Oct; 64(4):444-453. PubMed ID: 32061572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effect of assistive devices on the precision of digital impressions for implants placed in edentulous maxilla: an in vitro study.
    Masu R; Tanaka S; Sanda M; Miyoshi K; Baba K
    Int J Implant Dent; 2021 Dec; 7(1):116. PubMed ID: 34902092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Trueness and precision of complete arch dentate digital models produced by intraoral and desktop scanners: An ex-vivo study.
    Vag J; Stevens CD; Badahman MH; Ludlow M; Sharp M; Brenes C; Mennito A; Renne W
    J Dent; 2023 Dec; 139():104764. PubMed ID: 37898433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison.
    Keul C; Güth JF
    Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Feb; 24(2):735-745. PubMed ID: 31134345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2011; 14(1):11-21. PubMed ID: 21657122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial.
    Dohiem MM; Abdelaziz MS; Abdalla MF; Fawzy AM
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Nov; 22(1):486. PubMed ID: 36371189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla.
    Waldecker M; Rues S; Awounvo Awounvo JS; Rammelsberg P; Bömicke W
    Clin Oral Investig; 2022 Nov; 26(11):6491-6502. PubMed ID: 35778534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Accuracy of three digital scanning methods for complete-arch tooth preparation: An in vitro comparison.
    Gao H; Liu X; Liu M; Yang X; Tan J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1001-1008. PubMed ID: 33736864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible.
    Hayama H; Fueki K; Wadachi J; Wakabayashi N
    J Prosthodont Res; 2018 Jul; 62(3):347-352. PubMed ID: 29502933
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance.
    Atieh MA; Ritter AV; Ko CC; Duqum I
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):400-405. PubMed ID: 28222869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.