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.
165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37066893)
1. Comparison of the accuracy between full-arch digital scans and scannable impression materials: an in vitro study. Grande F; Celeghin G; Gallinaro F; Mobilio N; Catapano S Minerva Dent Oral Sci; 2023 Aug; 72(4):168-175. PubMed ID: 37066893 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings. Conejo J; Yoo TH; Atria PJ; Fraiman H; Blatz MB J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Mar; 131(3):475.e1-475.e7. PubMed ID: 38182453 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of conventional impressions versus digital scans for the all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch: An in vitro study. Marshaha NJ; Azhari AA; Assery MK; Ahmed WM J Prosthodont; 2024 Feb; 33(2):171-179. PubMed ID: 36811911 [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. In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra-oral scanning devices. Palantza E; Sykaras N; Zoidis P; Kourtis S J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Aug; 36(8):1179-1198. PubMed ID: 38534043 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Accuracy of implant impression techniques with a scannable healing abutment. Jung HT; Kim HY; Song SY; Park JH; Lee JY J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Oct; 128(4):729-734. PubMed ID: 33832762 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Effect of scan powder and scanning technology on measured deviations of complete-arch implant supported frameworks digitized with industrial and intraoral scanners. Donmez MB; Çakmak G; Dede DÖ; Küçükekenci AS; Lu WE; Schumacher FL; Revilla-León M; Yilmaz B J Dent; 2023 Nov; 138():104736. PubMed ID: 37802291 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Effect of auxiliary geometric devices on the accuracy of intraoral scans in full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations: An in vitro study. Canullo L; Pesce P; Caponio VCA; Iacono R; Luciani FS; Raffone C; Menini M J Dent; 2024 Jun; 145():104979. PubMed ID: 38556193 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]