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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37485737)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Accuracy of intraoral optical scan versus stereophotogrammetry for complete-arch digital implant impression: An in vitro study.
    Pozzi A; Agliardi E; Lio F; Nagy K; Nardi A; Arcuri L
    J Prosthodont Res; 2024 Jan; 68(1):172-180. PubMed ID: 37574278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis: A clinical study.
    Fu XJ; Liu M; Liu BL; Tonetti MS; Shi JY; Lai HC
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2024 Aug; 35(8):830-840. PubMed ID: 37746813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study.
    Yan Y; Lin X; Yue X; Geng W
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Oct; 130(4):564-572. PubMed ID: 35667889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression.
    Kim KR; Seo KY; Kim S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Dec; 122(6):543-549. PubMed ID: 30955939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Influence of Implant Scanbody Wear on the Accuracy of Digital Impression for Complete-Arch: A Randomized In Vitro Trial.
    Arcuri L; Lio F; Campana V; Mazzetti V; Federici FR; Nardi A; Galli M
    Materials (Basel); 2022 Jan; 15(3):. PubMed ID: 35160873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with or without scanbody splinting: An in vitro study.
    Pozzi A; Arcuri L; Lio F; Papa A; Nardi A; Londono J
    J Dent; 2022 Apr; 119():104072. PubMed ID: 35189313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial.
    Arcuri L; Pozzi A; Lio F; Rompen E; Zechner W; Nardi A
    J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Apr; 64(2):128-136. PubMed ID: 31255546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study.
    Tohme H; Lawand G; Chmielewska M; Makhzoume J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Feb; 129(2):354-362. PubMed ID: 34112521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review.
    Michelinakis G; Apostolakis D; Kamposiora P; Papavasiliou G; Özcan M
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Jan; 21(1):37. PubMed ID: 33478459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Comparison of Milled Full-Arch Implant-Supported Frameworks Realised with a Full Digital Workflow or from Conventional Impression: A Clinical Study.
    Pera F; Pesce P; Bagnasco F; Pancini N; Carossa M; Baldelli L; Annunziata M; Migliorati M; Baldi D; Menini M
    Materials (Basel); 2023 Jan; 16(2):. PubMed ID: 36676569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.