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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38070075)

  • 1. Efficient intraoral photogrammetry using self-identifying projective invariant marker.
    Chen Y; Zhu M; He B; Deng Z
    Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2024 Apr; 19(4):767-778. PubMed ID: 38070075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses.
    Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Evaluation of accuracy of photogrammetry with 3D scanning and conventional impression method for craniomaxillofacial defects using a software analysis.
    Beri A; Pisulkar SK; Bagde AD; Bansod A; Dahihandekar C; Paikrao B
    Trials; 2022 Dec; 23(1):1048. PubMed ID: 36575547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine.
    Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Accuracy of photogrammetric imaging versus conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A comparative clinical study.
    Zhang YJ; Qian SJ; Lai HC; Shi JY
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Aug; 130(2):212-218. PubMed ID: 34776266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Photogrammetric and Intraoral Digital Impression Technique for the Rehabilitation of Multiple Unfavorably Positioned Dental Implants: A Clinical Report.
    Molinero-Mourelle P; Lam W; Cascos-Sánchez R; Azevedo L; Gómez-Polo M
    J Oral Implantol; 2019 Oct; 45(5):398-402. PubMed ID: 31429638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.
    Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Mancl L; Brudvik JS; Raigrodski AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Oct; 110(4):243-51. PubMed ID: 24079558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Trueness and precision of complete-arch photogrammetry implant scanning assessed with a coordinate-measuring machine.
    Revilla-León M; Rubenstein J; Methani MM; Piedra-Cascón W; Özcan M; Att W
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jan; 129(1):160-165. PubMed ID: 34154820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Photogrammetry and conventional impressions for recording implant positions: a comparative laboratory study.
    Ortorp A; Jemt T; Bäck T
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2005; 7(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15903174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. All-on-four rehabilitation using photogrammetric impression technique.
    Sánchez-Monescillo A; Hernanz-Martín J; González-Serrano C; González-Serrano J; Duarte S
    Quintessence Int; 2019; 50(4):288-293. PubMed ID: 30887962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants.
    Pradíes G; Ferreiroa A; Özcan M; Giménez B; Martínez-Rus F
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Apr; 145(4):338-44. PubMed ID: 24686966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Intraoral scanning and dental photogrammetry for full-arch implant-supported prosthesis: A technique.
    Clozza E
    Clin Adv Periodontics; 2023 Nov; ():. PubMed ID: 37921978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Photogrammetry Impression Technique: A Case History Report.
    Sánchez-Monescillo A; Sánchez-Turrión A; Vellon-Domarco E; Salinas-Goodier C; Prados-Frutos JC
    Int J Prosthodont; 2016; 29(1):71-3. PubMed ID: 26757333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Photogrammetric method to measure the discrepancy between clinical and software-designed positions of implants.
    Rivara F; Lumetti S; Calciolari E; Toffoli A; Forlani G; Manfredi E
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Jun; 115(6):703-11. PubMed ID: 26794693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of stereophotogrammetry systems for acquiring 3D dental implant positions: A systematic review.
    Gómez-Polo M; Barmak AB; Ortega R; Rutkunas V; Kois JC; Revilla-León M
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Dec; 32(S2):208-224. PubMed ID: 37591510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Accuracy of photogrammetry and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an
    Sun YJ; Ma BW; Yue XX; Lin X; Geng W
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2022 Feb; 57(2):168-172. PubMed ID: 35152653
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Impact of scanning distance on the accuracy of a photogrammetry system.
    Revilla-León M; Gómez-Polo M; Drone M; Barmak AB; Guinot-Barona C; Att W; Kois JC; Alonso Pérez-Barquero J
    J Dent; 2024 Mar; 142():104854. PubMed ID: 38246309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Photogrammetry--an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study.
    Jemt T; Bäck T; Petersson A
    Int J Prosthodont; 1999; 12(4):363-8. PubMed ID: 10635208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.