282 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37236297)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Effect of Scanner Type and Scan Body Location on the Accuracy of Mandibular Complete-Arch Digital Implant Scans: An In Vitro Study.
Çakmak G; Yilmaz H; Treviño Santos A; Kökat AM; Yilmaz B
J Prosthodont; 2022 Jun; 31(5):419-426. PubMed ID: 34453466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of artificial landmarks of the prefabricated auxiliary devices located at different arch positions on the accuracy of complete-arch edentulous digital implant scanning: An in-vitro study.
Wu HK; Chen G; Zhang Z; Lin X; Huang X; Deng F; Li Y
J Dent; 2024 Jan; 140():104802. PubMed ID: 38072336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of splinting scan bodies on trueness of complete-arch implant impression using different intraoral scanners: an in vitro study.
Retana L; Nejat AH; Pozzi A
Int J Comput Dent; 2023 Feb; 26(1):19-28. PubMed ID: 35072425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Accuracy of Complete-Arch Implant Digital Scans: Effect of Scanning Protocol, Number of Implants, and Scan Body Splinting.
Denneulin T; Rignon-Bret C; Ravalec G; Tapie L; Bouter D; Wulfman C
Int J Prosthodont; 2023 May; 36(2):219-227. PubMed ID: 36288490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Influence of scanning protocol on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant scans: An in vitro study.
Hamilton A; Negreiros WM; Jain S; Finkelman M; Gallucci GO
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2024 Jun; 35(6):641-651. PubMed ID: 38567801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions.
Rutkunas V; Gedrimiene A; Akulauskas M; Fehmer V; Sailer I; Jegelevicius D
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2021 Dec; 32(12):1444-1454. PubMed ID: 34543478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Influence of ambient light conditions on the accuracy and scanning time of seven intraoral scanners in complete-arch implant scans.
Ochoa-López G; Cascos R; Antonaya-Martín JL; Revilla-León M; Gómez-Polo M
J Dent; 2022 Jun; 121():104138. PubMed ID: 35461973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of different artificial landmarks and scanning patterns on the complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans.
Kanjanasavitree P; Thammajaruk P; Guazzato M
J Dent; 2022 Oct; 125():104266. PubMed ID: 35995084
[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. Error propagation from intraoral scanning to additive manufacturing of complete-arch dentate models: An in vitro study.
Auškalnis L; Akulauskas M; Jegelevičius D; Simonaitis T; Rutkūnas V
J Dent; 2022 Jun; 121():104136. PubMed ID: 35460866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. In vivo trueness and precision of full-arch implant scans using intraoral scanners with three different acquisition protocols.
Nedelcu R; Olsson P; Thulin M; Nyström I; Thor A
J Dent; 2023 Jan; 128():104308. PubMed ID: 36481688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Scan accuracy and time efficiency of different implant-supported fixed partial denture situations depending on the intraoral scanner and scanned area: An in vitro study.
Donmez MB; Mathey A; Gäumann F; Mathey A; Yilmaz B; Abou-Ayash S
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jun; 131(6):1198-1207. PubMed ID: 36868987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
