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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38197765)

  • 1. Effect of Tooth Mobility on the Accuracy of Conventional Impressions: A Pilot Study.
    Lu B; Zhu J; Shao L; Yu Q
    Int J Prosthodont; 2024 Apr; 37(2):232. PubMed ID: 38197765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.
    Carbajal Mejía JB; Wakabayashi K; Nakamura T; Yatani H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):392-399. PubMed ID: 28222873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accuracy of three digital scanning methods for complete-arch tooth preparation: An in vitro comparison.
    Gao H; Liu X; Liu M; Yang X; Tan J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1001-1008. PubMed ID: 33736864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions for Whole Upper Jaws, Including Full Dentitions and Palatal Soft Tissues.
    Gan N; Xiong Y; Jiao T
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(7):e0158800. PubMed ID: 27383409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of the accuracy of direct intraoral scanner impressions for digital post and core in various post lengths: An in-vitro study.
    Almalki A; Conejo J; Kutkut N; Blatz M; Hai Q; Anadioti E
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Apr; 36(4):673-679. PubMed ID: 37921014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [
    Xu XX; Cao Y; Zhao YJ; Jia L; Xie QF
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Dec; 53(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 33550336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    Quintessence Int; 2015 Jan; 46(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 25019118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Effect of disinfectant with benzethon chloramine and isopropanol as main active ingredients on the accuracy of dental impression].
    Xu D; Wei DH; Zhang YC; DI P; Lin Y
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2020 Dec; 52(6):1112-1116. PubMed ID: 33331323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An alternative impression technique for mobile teeth.
    Lampraki E; Chochlidakis KM; Rossopoulos E; Ercoli C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Oct; 116(4):492-495. PubMed ID: 27402417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Influence of intraoral scanning coverage on the accuracy of digital implant impressions - An in vitro study.
    Wang ZY; Gong Y; Liu F; Chen D; Zheng JW; Shen JF
    J Dent; 2024 Apr; 143():104929. PubMed ID: 38458380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance.
    Atieh MA; Ritter AV; Ko CC; Duqum I
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):400-405. PubMed ID: 28222869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.
    Ender A; Zimmermann M; Mehl A
    Int J Comput Dent; 2019; 22(1):11-19. PubMed ID: 30848250
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions.
    Anadioti E; Aquilino SA; Gratton DG; Holloway JA; Denry I; Thomas GW; Qian F
    J Prosthodont; 2014 Dec; 23(8):610-7. PubMed ID: 24995593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction.
    Burzynski JA; Firestone AR; Beck FM; Fields HW; Deguchi T
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2018 Apr; 153(4):534-541. PubMed ID: 29602345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Impressions techniques--Part 2].
    Levartovsky S; Masri M; Alter E; Pilo R
    Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993); 2012 Oct; 29(4):33-8, 71. PubMed ID: 23367724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Effect of Impression Technique and Operator Experience on Impression Time and Operator-Reported Outcomes.
    Yilmaz H; Eglenen MN; Cakmak G; Yilmaz B
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Oct; 30(8):676-683. PubMed ID: 33533132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.