199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38182453)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Digital workflow: In vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans.
Papaspyridakos P; Chen YW; Alshawaf B; Kang K; Finkelman M; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Nov; 124(5):589-593. PubMed ID: 31959396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Accuracy of impression scan bodies for complete arch fixed implant-supported restorations.
Jeong M; Ishikawa-Nagai S; Lee JD; Lee SJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Dec; ():. PubMed ID: 38092618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae.
Chochlidakis K; Papaspyridakos P; Tsigarida A; Romeo D; Chen YW; Natto Z; Ercoli C
J Prosthodont; 2020 Apr; 29(4):281-286. PubMed ID: 32166793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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 Mar; ():. PubMed ID: 38534043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of the accuracy between full-arch digital scans and scannable impression materials: an in vitro study.
Grande F; Celeghin G; Gallinaro F; Mobilio N; Catapano S
Minerva Dent Oral Sci; 2023 Aug; 72(4):168-175. PubMed ID: 37066893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Three-dimensional differences between intraoral scans and conventional impressions of edentulous jaws: A clinical study.
Lo Russo L; Caradonna G; Troiano G; Salamini A; Guida L; Ciavarella D
J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Feb; 123(2):264-268. PubMed ID: 31153614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
