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)

  • 21. Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques on implants: a review.
    Arcuri L; Lorenzi C; Vanni A; Bianchi N; Dolci A; Arcuri C
    J Biol Regul Homeost Agents; 2020; 34(1 Suppl. 1):89-97. DENTAL SUPPLEMENT. PubMed ID: 32064840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Digital versus conventional full-arch impressions in linear and 3D accuracy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies.
    Kong L; Li Y; Liu Z
    Clin Oral Investig; 2022 Sep; 26(9):5625-5642. PubMed ID: 35786783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: A systematic review.
    Schmidt A; Wöstmann B; Schlenz MA
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2022 Jun; 33(6):573-585. PubMed ID: 35527511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. In Vivo and In Vitro Comparison of Internal and Marginal Fit of Digital and Conventional Impressions for Full-Coverage Fixed Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
    Hasanzade M; Shirani M; Afrashtehfar KI; Naseri P; Alikhasi M
    J Evid Based Dent Pract; 2019 Sep; 19(3):236-254. PubMed ID: 31732100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner.
    Mennito AS; Evans ZP; Nash J; Bocklet C; Lauer Kelly A; Bacro T; Cayouette M; Ludlow M; Renne WG
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2019 Jul; 31(4):369-377. PubMed ID: 31058428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Final-impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures.
    Jayaraman S; Singh BP; Ramanathan B; Pazhaniappan Pillai M; MacDonald L; Kirubakaran R
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2018 Apr; 4(4):CD012256. PubMed ID: 29617037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Fit of zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Morsy N; El Kateb M; Azer A; Fathalla S
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jul; 130(1):28-34. PubMed ID: 34696907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: a systematic review.
    Siqueira R; Galli M; Chen Z; Mendonça G; Meirelles L; Wang HL; Chan HL
    Clin Oral Investig; 2021 Dec; 25(12):6517-6531. PubMed ID: 34568955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method.
    Schmidt A; Rein PE; Wöstmann B; Schlenz MA
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2021 Apr; 32(4):460-469. PubMed ID: 33469983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.
    Marghalani A; Weber HP; Finkelman M; Kudara Y; El Rafie K; Papaspyridakos P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579. PubMed ID: 28927923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review.
    Lee H; So JS; Hochstedler JL; Ercoli C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Oct; 100(4):285-91. PubMed ID: 18922257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.
    Ender A; Zimmermann M; Attin T; Mehl A
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Sep; 20(7):1495-504. PubMed ID: 26547869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes.
    Lee SJ; Gallucci GO
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2013 Jan; 24(1):111-5. PubMed ID: 22353208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions: two and three dimensional evaluations.
    Bi C; Wang X; Tian F; Qu Z; Zhao J
    J Adv Prosthodont; 2022 Aug; 14(4):236-249. PubMed ID: 36105881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.
    Albanchez-González MI; Brinkmann JC; Peláez-Rico J; López-Suárez C; Rodríguez-Alonso V; Suárez-García MJ
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022 Feb; 19(4):. PubMed ID: 35206217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review.
    Gallardo YR; Bohner L; Tortamano P; Pigozzo MN; Laganá DC; Sesma N
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Feb; 119(2):214-219. PubMed ID: 28967407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Digital and conventional impressions have similar working times.
    Cave V; Keys W
    Evid Based Dent; 2018 Oct; 19(3):84-85. PubMed ID: 30361663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.