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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38072336)

  • 1. Effect of artificial landmarks of the prefabricated auxiliary devices located at different arch positions on the accuracy of complete-arch edentulous digital implant scanning: An in-vitro study.
    Wu HK; Chen G; Zhang Z; Lin X; Huang X; Deng F; Li Y
    J Dent; 2024 Jan; 140():104802. PubMed ID: 38072336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of novel prefabricated auxiliary devices attaching to scan bodies on the accuracy of intraoral scanning of complete-arch with multiple implants: An in-vitro study.
    Wu HK; Wang J; Chen G; Huang X; Deng F; Li Y
    J Dent; 2023 Nov; 138():104702. PubMed ID: 37714453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Effect of prefabricated auxiliary devices and scanning patterns on the accuracy of complete-arch implant digital impressions.
    Wu HK; Chen G; Wang J; Zhang Z; Huang X; Lin X; Deng F; Li Y
    J Dent; 2024 Jan; 140():104788. PubMed ID: 37992957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of different artificial landmarks and scanning patterns on the complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans.
    Kanjanasavitree P; Thammajaruk P; Guazzato M
    J Dent; 2022 Oct; 125():104266. PubMed ID: 35995084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation.
    Huang R; Liu Y; Huang B; Zhang C; Chen Z; Li Z
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2020 Jul; 31(7):625-633. PubMed ID: 32181919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A novel post-processing strategy to improve the accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scanning for implants: an in vitro study.
    Pan Y; Dai X; Wan F; Song C; Tsoi JK; Pow EH
    J Dent; 2023 Dec; 139():104761. PubMed ID: 37879557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques.
    Lyu M; Di P; Lin Y; Jiang X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1017-1023. PubMed ID: 33640093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra-oral scanning devices.
    Palantza E; Sykaras N; Zoidis P; Kourtis S
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Aug; 36(8):1179-1198. PubMed ID: 38534043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 3D Accuracy of a Conventional Method Versus Three Digital Scanning Strategies for Completely Edentulous Maxillary Implant Impressions.
    Blanco-Plard A; Hernandez A; Pino F; Vargas N; Rivas-Tumanyan S; Elias A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2023 Dec; 38(6):1211-1219. PubMed ID: 38085753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Effect of a Novel 'Scan Body' on the In Vitro Scanning Accuracy of Full-Arch Implant Impressions.
    Zhang T; Yang B; Ge R; Zhang C; Zhang H; Wang Y
    Int Dent J; 2024 Aug; 74(4):847-854. PubMed ID: 38368235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.
    Papaspyridakos P; Gallucci GO; Chen CJ; Hanssen S; Naert I; Vandenberghe B
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Apr; 27(4):465-72. PubMed ID: 25682892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of impression-making methods in edentulous arches: An in vitro study encompassing conventional and digital methods.
    Li J; Moon HS; Kim JH; Yoon HI; Oh KC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):479-486. PubMed ID: 33583617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression.
    Kim KR; Seo KY; Kim S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Dec; 122(6):543-549. PubMed ID: 30955939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.