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 *

108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37696746)

  • 1. Trueness of 4 sectional-cast digital methods for transferring the interocclusal relationship in complete mouth rehabilitation.
    Gao H; Liu X; Zhou T; Tan J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Sep; ():. PubMed ID: 37696746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Three-dimensional analysis of the accuracy of conventional and completely digital interocclusal registration methods.
    Ries JM; Grünler C; Wichmann M; Matta RE
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):994-1000. PubMed ID: 33888327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Three-point sectional-cast digital method for transferring the interocclusal relationship for full-mouth rehabilitation of worn dentition.
    Liu X; Zhou T; Gao H; Zhou J; Li D; Tan J
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Mar; 32(3):273-277. PubMed ID: 36586420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of repeatability of different alignment methods to obtain digital interocclusal records: An in vitro study.
    Garikano X; Amezua X; Iturrate M; Solaberrieta E
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Apr; 131(4):709-717. PubMed ID: 36115710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy comparison of bilateral versus complete arch interocclusal registration scans for virtual articulation.
    Lee JD; Luu D; Yoon TW; Lee SJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Feb; ():. PubMed ID: 36813588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of accuracy in digital and conventional cross-mounting.
    Luu D; Kan E; Kim SW; Lee JD; Lee SJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Dec; ():. PubMed ID: 36473749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Digital mounting accuracy of 2 intraoral scanners with a single anterior or bilateral posterior occlusal scan: A three-dimensional analysis.
    Cha C; Pyo SW; Chang JS; Kim S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Oct; 130(4):612.e1-612.e8. PubMed ID: 37633731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Trueness of intraoral scanning of edentulous arches: A comparative clinical study.
    Al Hamad KQ; Al-Kaff FT
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Jan; 32(1):26-31. PubMed ID: 35997079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. A comparative study assessing the precision and trueness of digital and printed casts produced from several intraoral and extraoral scanners in full arch and short span (3-unit FPD) scanning: An in vitro study.
    Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Jun; 32(5):423-430. PubMed ID: 35852379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Do "cut out-rescan" procedures have an impact on the accuracy of intraoral digital scans?
    Reich S; Yatmaz B; Raith S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Jan; 125(1):89-94. PubMed ID: 32059858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Analyzing the accuracy of a cross-mounting technique utilizing digitized interocclusal records.
    Kan E; Luu D; Kim SW; Liu R; Lee JD; Lee SJ
    J Prosthodont; 2024 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 38985110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy of a chairside intraoral scanner compared with a laboratory scanner for the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro 3-dimensional comparative analysis.
    Zarone F; Ruggiero G; Ferrari M; Mangano F; Joda T; Sorrentino R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Dec; 124(6):761.e1-761.e7. PubMed ID: 33289647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Comparison of the dimensional and morphological accuracy of three-dimensional digital dental casts digitized using different methods.
    Ye J; Wang S; Wang Z; Liu Y; Sun Y; Ye H; Zhou Y
    Odontology; 2023 Jan; 111(1):165-171. PubMed ID: 36068382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.