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 *

160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38304652)

  • 1. Digital Impressions Versus Conventional Impressions in Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review.
    Ahmed S; Hawsah A; Rustom R; Alamri A; Althomairy S; Alenezi M; Shaker S; Alrawsaa F; Althumairy A; Alteraigi A
    Cureus; 2024 Jan; 16(1):e51537. PubMed ID: 38304652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Accuracy of Digital Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.
    Giachetti L; Sarti C; Cinelli F; Russo DS
    Int J Prosthodont; 2020; 33(2):192-201. PubMed ID: 32069344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review.
    Ahlholm P; Sipilä K; Vallittu P; Jakonen M; Kotiranta U
    J Prosthodont; 2018 Jan; 27(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 27483210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Chochlidakis KM; Papaspyridakos P; Geminiani A; Chen CJ; Feng IJ; Ercoli C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Aug; 116(2):184-190.e12. PubMed ID: 26946916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Flügge T; van der Meer WJ; Gonzalez BG; Vach K; Wismeijer D; Wang P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():374-392. PubMed ID: 30328182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Bandiaky ON; Le Bars P; Gaudin A; Hardouin JB; Cheraud-Carpentier M; Mbodj EB; Soueidan A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Jan; 127(1):71-79. PubMed ID: 33143901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A clinical study comparing digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported prostheses: A crossover clinical trial.
    Lee SJ; Jamjoom FZ; Le T; Radics A; Gallucci GO
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Jul; 128(1):42-48. PubMed ID: 33602542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Evaluating Different Impression Techniques for Implant-Supported Prostheses in Partially and Completely Edentulous Arches.
    Gaikwad AM; Joshi AA; de Oliveira-Neto OB; Padhye AM; Nadgere JB; Ram SM; Yadav SR
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2022; 37(6):1119-1137. PubMed ID: 36450017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Patient preference and operating time for digital versus conventional impressions: a network meta-analysis.
    Sivaramakrishnan G; Alsobaiei M; Sridharan K
    Aust Dent J; 2020 Mar; 65(1):58-69. PubMed ID: 31749234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Tsirogiannis P; Reissmann DR; Heydecke G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Sep; 116(3):328-335.e2. PubMed ID: 27061627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review.
    Ting-Shu S; Jian S
    J Prosthodont; 2015 Jun; 24(4):313-21. PubMed ID: 25220390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Digital Impressions in Implant Dentistry: A Literature Review.
    Marques S; Ribeiro P; Falcão C; Lemos BF; Ríos-Carrasco B; Ríos-Santos JV; Herrero-Climent M
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 Jan; 18(3):. PubMed ID: 33498902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions.
    Benic GI; Mühlemann S; Fehmer V; Hämmerle CH; Sailer I
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Nov; 116(5):777-782. PubMed ID: 27460321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of the Clinical Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Dental Implant Impressions.
    Rutkunas V; Gedrimiene A; Adaskevicius R; Al-Haj Husain N; Özcan M
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2020 Nov; 28(4):173-181. PubMed ID: 32673469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Papaspyridakos P; Vazouras K; Chen YW; Kotina E; Natto Z; Kang K; Chochlidakis K
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Oct; 29(8):660-678. PubMed ID: 32613641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Elastic deformation of the mandibular jaw revisited-a clinical comparison between digital and conventional impressions using a reference.
    Schmidt A; Klussmann L; Schlenz MA; Wöstmann B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Jul; 25(7):4635-4642. PubMed ID: 33442777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions.
    Lee SJ; Macarthur RX; Gallucci GO
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Nov; 110(5):420-3. PubMed ID: 23998623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.