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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37927146)

  • 1. Non-invasive oral implant position assessment: An ex vivo study using a 3D industrial scan as the reference model to mimic the clinical situation.
    Tarce M; Becker K; Lahoud P; Shujaat S; Jacobs R; Quirynen M
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2024 Aug; 35(8):854-863. PubMed ID: 37927146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of computer-assisted template-based implant placement using conventional impression and scan model or intraoral digital impression: A randomised controlled trial with 1 year of follow-up.
    Tallarico M; Xhanari E; Kim YJ; Cocchi F; Martinolli M; Alushi A; Baldoni EE; Meloni SM
    Int J Oral Implantol (Berl); 2019; 12(2):197-206. PubMed ID: 31090750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial.
    Dohiem MM; Abdelaziz MS; Abdalla MF; Fawzy AM
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Nov; 22(1):486. PubMed ID: 36371189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry.
    Cheng J; Zhang H; Liu H; Li J; Wang HL; Tao X
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2024 May; 35(5):560-572. PubMed ID: 38421115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Positional trueness of abutments by using a digital die-merging protocol compared with complete arch direct digital scans and conventional dental impressions.
    Jelicich A; Scialabba R; Lee SJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Feb; 131(2):293-300. PubMed ID: 35430047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Merging intraoral scans and CBCT: a novel technique for improving the accuracy of 3D digital models for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses.
    Gómez-Polo M; Ballesteros J; Padilla PP; Pulido PP; Revilla-León M; Ortega R
    Int J Comput Dent; 2021 Jun; 24(2):117-123. PubMed ID: 34085497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect of supramucosal height of a scan body and implant angulation on the accuracy of intraoral scanning: An in vitro study.
    Sicilia E; Lagreca G; Papaspyridakos P; Finkelman M; Cobo J; Att W; Revilla-León M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jun; 131(6):1126-1134. PubMed ID: 36828728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Accuracy of implant impression techniques with a scannable healing abutment.
    Jung HT; Kim HY; Song SY; Park JH; Lee JY
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Oct; 128(4):729-734. PubMed ID: 33832762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Accuracy of implant position when placed using static computer-assisted implant surgical guides manufactured with two different optical scanning techniques: a randomized clinical trial.
    Kiatkroekkrai P; Takolpuckdee C; Subbalekha K; Mattheos N; Pimkhaokham A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2020 Mar; 49(3):377-383. PubMed ID: 31543382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of intraoral scanner and fixed partial denture situation on the scan accuracy of multiple implants: An in vitro study.
    Donmez MB; Mathey A; Gäumann F; Mathey A; Yilmaz B; Abou-Ayash S
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2023 Jun; 25(3):502-510. PubMed ID: 36762495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery With Different Fields of View of Cone-Beam Computerized Tomography.
    Lee HC; Chiou LL; Yang CC; Lin WS; Dutra V; Hamada Y
    J Oral Implantol; 2024 Apr; 50(2):111-118. PubMed ID: 38400736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions.
    Albayrak B; Sukotjo C; Wee AG; Korkmaz İH; Bayındır F
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Feb; 30(2):163-170. PubMed ID: 32935894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.
    Marghalani A; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Kudara Y; El Rafie K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579. PubMed ID: 28927923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of Anchor-Guiding Sleeve Length on the Accuracy of Computer-Guided Flapless Implant Surgery.
    Dusmukhamedov S; Lee C; Jeong SM; Choi BH
    J Oral Implantol; 2022 Dec; 48(6):578-583. PubMed ID: 35881817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method.
    Schmidt A; Rein PE; Wöstmann B; Schlenz MA
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2021 Apr; 32(4):460-469. PubMed ID: 33469983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of a Dynamic Dental Implant Navigation System in a Private Practice.
    Stefanelli LV; DeGroot BS; Lipton DI; Mandelaris GA
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(1):205–213. PubMed ID: 30521660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Digital implant impressions by cone-beam computerized tomography: a pilot study.
    Corominas-Delgado C; Espona J; Lorente-Gascón M; Real-Voltas F; Roig M; Costa-Palau S
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Nov; 27(11):1407-1413. PubMed ID: 26715129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.