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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37865553)

  • 1. Clinical outcomes of digital scans versus conventional impressions for implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Reis INRD; Chamma-Wedemann CN; Silva IAO; Spin-Neto R; Sesma N; da Silva EVF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Oct; ():. PubMed ID: 37865553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Bandiaky ON; Le Bars P; Gaudin A; Hardouin JB; Cheraud-Carpentier M; Mbodj EB; Soueidan A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Jan; 127(1):71-79. PubMed ID: 33143901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. DIGITAL SCANS, COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL IMPRESSIONS, MAY EXPEDITE FABRICATION TIME FOR FULL-ARCH IMPLANT-SUPPORTED PROSTHESES WHILE MAINTAINING A COMPARABLE LEVEL OF MARGINAL BONE LOSS.
    Alqutaibi AY; Alghauli MA; Aboalrejal AN
    J Evid Based Dent Pract; 2024 Jun; 24(2):101987. PubMed ID: 38821664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Fit of zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Morsy N; El Kateb M; Azer A; Fathalla S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jul; 130(1):28-34. PubMed ID: 34696907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A clinical study comparing digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported prostheses: A crossover clinical trial.
    Lee SJ; Jamjoom FZ; Le T; Radics A; Gallucci GO
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Jul; 128(1):42-48. PubMed ID: 33602542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions.
    Sailer I; Mühlemann S; Fehmer V; Hämmerle CHF; Benic GI
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Jan; 121(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 30017152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Clinical outcomes of implant-supported and tooth-supported fixed prostheses fabricated from digital versus analogue impression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Mahat NS; Shetty NY; Kohli S; Jamayet NB; Patil P
    Evid Based Dent; 2023 Sep; 24(3):142. PubMed ID: 37369705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings.
    Conejo J; Yoo TH; Atria PJ; Fraiman H; Blatz MB
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Mar; 131(3):475.e1-475.e7. PubMed ID: 38182453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae.
    Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P; Tsigarida A; Romeo D; Chen YW; Natto Z; Ercoli C
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Apr; 29(4):281-286. PubMed ID: 32166793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Marginal and internal adaptation of single crowns and fixed dental prostheses by using digital and conventional workflows: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Hasanzade M; Aminikhah M; Afrashtehfar KI; Alikhasi M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Sep; 126(3):360-368. PubMed ID: 32928518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An in vitro study.
    El Osta N; Drancourt N; Auduc C; Veyrune JL; Nicolas E
    J Dent; 2024 Apr; 143():104892. PubMed ID: 38367825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Digital versus conventional workflow for the fabrication of multiunit fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of vertical marginal fit in controlled in vitro studies.
    Lo Russo L; Caradonna G; Biancardino M; De Lillo A; Troiano G; Guida L
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Nov; 122(5):435-440. PubMed ID: 31027957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A combined digital and stereophotogrammetric technique for rehabilitation with immediate loading of complete-arch, implant-supported prostheses: A randomized controlled pilot clinical trial.
    Peñarrocha-Diago M; Balaguer-Martí JC; Peñarrocha-Oltra D; Balaguer-Martínez JF; Peñarrocha-Diago M; Agustín-Panadero R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Nov; 118(5):596-603. PubMed ID: 28385445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Flügge T; van der Meer WJ; Gonzalez BG; Vach K; Wismeijer D; Wang P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():374-392. PubMed ID: 30328182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Conventional versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Cappare P; Sannino G; Minoli M; Montemezzi P; Ferrini F
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2019 Mar; 16(5):. PubMed ID: 30866465
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Linear Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Impressions of Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Floriani F; Lopes GC; Cabrera A; Duarte W; Zoidis P; Oliveira D; Rocha MG
    Eur J Dent; 2023 Oct; 17(4):964-973. PubMed ID: 36716787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Papaspyridakos P; Vazouras K; Chen YW; Kotina E; Natto Z; Kang K; Chochlidakis K
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Oct; 29(8):660-678. PubMed ID: 32613641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity effect and patient satisfaction.
    Carneiro Pereira AL; Medeiros VR; Campos MFTP; de Medeiros AKB; Yilmaz B; Carreiro ADFP
    J Adv Prosthodont; 2022 Aug; 14(4):212-222. PubMed ID: 36105876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.