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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37910827)

  • 21. Randomized Clinical Trial comparing clinical adjustment times of CAD/CAM screw-retained posterior crowns on ti-base abutments created with digital or conventional impressions. One-year follow-up.
    Derksen W; Tahmaseb A; Wismeijer D
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2021 Aug; 32(8):962-970. PubMed ID: 34080238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate versus monolithic CAD-CAM zirconia for single implant-supported posterior crowns using a digital workflow: A 3-year cross-sectional retrospective study.
    De Angelis P; Passarelli PC; Gasparini G; Boniello R; D'Amato G; De Angelis S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Feb; 123(2):252-256. PubMed ID: 31202552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners.
    Abdel-Azim T; Rogers K; Elathamna E; Zandinejad A; Metz M; Morton D
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):554-9. PubMed ID: 26100929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Quantitative clinical adjustment analysis of posterior single implant crown in a chairside digital workflow: A randomized controlled trial.
    Zhang Y; Tian J; Wei D; Di P; Lin Y
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2019 Nov; 30(11):1059-1066. PubMed ID: 31357225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Patient-reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO
    Gintaute A; Zitzmann NU; Brägger U; Weber K; Joda T
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Jan; 32(1):18-25. PubMed ID: 35938349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions.
    Zarauz C; Valverde A; Martinez-Rus F; Hassan B; Pradies G
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 May; 20(4):799-806. PubMed ID: 26362778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions.
    Benic GI; Mühlemann S; Fehmer V; Hämmerle CH; Sailer I
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Nov; 116(5):777-782. PubMed ID: 27460321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Digital vs Conventional Workflow for Screw-Retained Single-Implant Crowns: A Comparison of Key Considerations.
    Di Fiore A; Vigolo P; Graiff L; Stellini E
    Int J Prosthodont; 2018; 31(6):577-579. PubMed ID: 30408138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Randomized clinical trial of a conventional and a digital workflow for the fabrication of interim crowns: An evaluation of treatment efficiency, fit, and the effect of clinician experience.
    Cheng CW; Ye SY; Chien CH; Chen CJ; Papaspyridakos P; Ko CC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Jan; 125(1):73-81. PubMed ID: 32057487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. In vitro performance and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM-fabricated implant supported molar crowns.
    Rosentritt M; Hahnel S; Engelhardt F; Behr M; Preis V
    Clin Oral Investig; 2017 May; 21(4):1213-1219. PubMed ID: 27370027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods.
    Ng J; Ruse D; Wyatt C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Sep; 112(3):555-60. PubMed ID: 24630399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Clinical Performance of CAD/CAM Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Implant-Supported Single Crowns Using Solid or Predrilled Blocks in a Fully Digital Workflow: A Retrospective Cohort Study With Up To 33 Months of Follow Up.
    Bompolaki D; Punj A; Fellows C; Truong C; Ferracane JL
    J Prosthodont; 2022 Jan; 31(1):38-44. PubMed ID: 33840144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Mechanical performance of implant-supported posterior crowns.
    de Kok P; Kleverlaan CJ; de Jager N; Kuijs R; Feilzer AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Jul; 114(1):59-66. PubMed ID: 25819357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [Clinical outcome of single posterior implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated using full digital workflow and conventional workflow: a 3-year follow-up].
    Gao SH; Guo DN; Zhou YS; Pan SX
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2022 Mar; 57(3):272-279. PubMed ID: 35280005
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Auxiliary occlusal devices for IO scanning in a complete digital workflow of implant-supported crowns: a randomized controlled trial.
    Ren S; Jiang X; Di P
    BMC Oral Health; 2024 Mar; 24(1):374. PubMed ID: 38519905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle.
    Nagata K; Fuchigami K; Okuhama Y; Wakamori K; Tsuruoka H; Nakashizu T; Hoshi N; Atsumi M; Kimoto K; Kawana H
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Sep; 21(1):464. PubMed ID: 34556111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of the Fit of Lithium Disilicate Crowns made from Conventional, Digital, or Conventional/Digital Techniques.
    Al Hamad KQ; Al Rashdan BA; Al Omari WM; Baba NZ
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):e580-e586. PubMed ID: 30091168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: Prosthodontic and patient-centered outcomes.
    Delize V; Bouhy A; Lambert F; Lamy M
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2019 Sep; 30(9):892-902. PubMed ID: 31183902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow.
    Seelbach P; Brueckel C; Wöstmann B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Sep; 17(7):1759-64. PubMed ID: 23086333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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