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 *

201 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38085753)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch.
    Tan MY; Yee SHX; Wong KM; Tan YH; Tan KBC
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(2):366–380. PubMed ID: 30521661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.
    Amin S; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Nov; 28(11):1360-1367. PubMed ID: 28039903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study.
    Alshawaf B; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):835-842. PubMed ID: 29926977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study.
    Alkindi S; Hamdoon Z; Aziz AM
    J Dent; 2024 Jul; 146():105045. PubMed ID: 38714241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques.
    Alsharbaty MHM; Alikhasi M; Zarrati S; Shamshiri AR
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Apr; 28(4):e902-e908. PubMed ID: 29423969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: Effects of Different Scanners and Implant Level.
    Chew AA; Esguerra RJ; Teoh KH; Wong KM; Ng SD; Tan KB
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2017; 32(1):70-80. PubMed ID: 27706264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of 3D Printed Implant Casts Versus Stone Casts: A Comparative Study in the Anterior Maxilla.
    Banjar A; Chen YW; Kostagianni A; Finkelman M; Papathanasiou A; Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Dec; 30(9):783-788. PubMed ID: 33474754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Scanning accuracy with splinted and unsplinted implant scan bodies for the edentulous arch at implant level: an in vitro study.
    Garbacea A; Alqahtani AF; Goodacre B; Alhelal A; Lozada J; Kattadiyil MT
    J Oral Implantol; 2022 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 35816623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.