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 *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37662853)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. Comparative analysis of intraoral scanners accuracy using 3D software: an in vivo study.
    Pellitteri F; Albertini P; Vogrig A; Spedicato GA; Siciliani G; Lombardo L
    Prog Orthod; 2022 Jul; 23(1):21. PubMed ID: 35781850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Comparison of the Clinical Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Dental Implant Impressions.
    Rutkunas V; Gedrimiene A; Adaskevicius R; Al-Haj Husain N; Özcan M
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2020 Nov; 28(4):173-181. PubMed ID: 32673469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study.
    Miyoshi K; Tanaka S; Yokoyama S; Sanda M; Baba K
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2020 Jan; 31(1):74-83. PubMed ID: 31608509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Accuracy of six intraoral scanners for scanning complete-arch and 4-unit fixed partial dentures: An in vitro study.
    Diker B; Tak Ö
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Aug; 128(2):187-194. PubMed ID: 33558056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence.
    Diker B; Tak Ö
    Int J Prosthodont; 2021; 34(1):101-108. PubMed ID: 33570525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Impression versus Conventional Method: Effect of Implant Angulation and Connection Type.
    Alikhasi M; Siadat H; Nasirpour A; Hasanzade M
    Int J Dent; 2018; 2018():3761750. PubMed ID: 29971107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. In Vitro Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses.
    D'haese R; Vrombaut T; Roeykens H; Vandeweghe S
    J Clin Med; 2022 Jan; 11(3):. PubMed ID: 35160045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. Accuracy of four recent intraoral scanners with respect to two different ceramic surfaces.
    Yatmaz BB; Raith S; Reich S
    J Dent; 2023 Mar; 130():104414. PubMed ID: 36640842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Accuracy of digital impressions versus conventional impressions for 2 implants: an in vitro study evaluating the effect of implant angulation.
    Abduo J; Palamara JEA
    Int J Implant Dent; 2021 Jul; 7(1):75. PubMed ID: 34327601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method.
    Nagy Z; Simon B; Mennito A; Evans Z; Renne W; Vág J
    BMC Oral Health; 2020 Apr; 20(1):97. PubMed ID: 32264943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. 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]  

  • 55. In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems.
    Orejas-Perez J; Gimenez-Gonzalez B; Ortiz-Collado I; Thuissard IJ; Santamaria-Laorden A
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022 Apr; 19(7):. PubMed ID: 35409985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. 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]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. In vitro evaluation of the accuracy and precision of intraoral and extraoral complete-arch scans.
    Baghani MT; Shayegh SS; Johnston WM; Shidfar S; Hakimaneh SMR
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Nov; 126(5):665-670. PubMed ID: 33070974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses.
    Mizumoto RM; Yilmaz B; McGlumphy EA; Seidt J; Johnston WM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Jan; 123(1):96-104. PubMed ID: 31040026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.