117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37620183)
1. Accuracy of different digital acquisition methods in complete arch implant-supported prostheses: An in vitro study.
Pinto RJ; Casado SA; Chmielewski K; Caramês JM; Marques DS
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jul; 132(1):172-177. PubMed ID: 37620183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Effect of splinting scan bodies on the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans with 5 different intraoral scanners.
Azevedo L; Marques T; Karasan D; Fehmer V; Sailer I; Correia A; Gómez-Polo M
J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jul; 132(1):204-210. PubMed ID: 37537105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Influence of scanbody design and intraoral scanner on the trueness of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study.
Meneghetti PC; Li J; Borella PS; Mendonça G; Burnett LH
PLoS One; 2023; 18(12):e0295790. PubMed ID: 38113200
[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. 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]
9. Trueness and precision of mandibular complete-arch implant scans when different data acquisition methods are used.
Demirel M; Donmez MB; Şahmalı SM
J Dent; 2023 Nov; 138():104700. PubMed ID: 37714451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses.
Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA
J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Accuracy of a chairside reverse scanbody workflow for a complete arch implant-supported prosthesis using four intraoral scanners versus a desktop scanner.
Nuytens P; Vandeweghe S; D'haese R
J Dent; 2023 Nov; 138():104717. PubMed ID: 37739058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Effect of feldspathic porcelain layering on the marginal fit of zirconia and titanium complete-arch fixed implant-supported frameworks.
Yilmaz B; Alshahrani FA; Kale E; Johnston WM
J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Jul; 120(1):71-78. PubMed ID: 29426786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reverse scan body: The scan pattern affects the fit of complete-arch prototype prostheses.
Papaspyridakos P; Bedrossian EA; Ntovas P; Kudara Y; Bokhary A; Chochlidakis K
J Prosthodont; 2023 Dec; 32(S2):186-191. PubMed ID: 37721306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Digital workflow: In vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans.
Papaspyridakos P; Chen YW; Alshawaf B; Kang K; Finkelman M; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Nov; 124(5):589-593. PubMed ID: 31959396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Accuracy of photogrammetry and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an
Sun YJ; Ma BW; Yue XX; Lin X; Geng W
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2022 Feb; 57(2):168-172. PubMed ID: 35152653
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Complete digital workflow for prosthesis prototype fabrication with double digital scanning: A retrospective study with 45 edentulous jaws.
Papaspyridakos P; Vazouras K; Gotsis S; Bokhary A; Sicilia E; Kudara Y; Bedrossian A; Chochlidakis K
J Prosthodont; 2023 Aug; 32(7):571-578. PubMed ID: 36527731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of intraoral and laboratory scanners to an industrial-grade scanner while analyzing the fabrication trueness of polymer and titanium complete-arch implant-supported frameworks.
Yilmaz B; Dede DÖ; Donmez MB; Küçükekenci AS; Lu WE; Schumacher FL; Çakmak G
J Dent; 2023 Nov; 138():104697. PubMed ID: 37696469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
