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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38607357)

  • 21. The influence of tray space and repeat pours on the accuracy of monophasic polyvinylsiloxane impression.
    Rajapur A; Dixit S; Hoshing C; Raikar SP
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Nov; 13(6):824-9. PubMed ID: 23404010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Design parameters of polylactic acid custom trays manufactured by fused deposition modeling for partial edentulism: Consideration of the accuracy of the definitive cast.
    Li H; Ma K; Sun Y; Chen H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Feb; 127(2):288.e1-288.e11. PubMed ID: 34924189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Need for a reliable alternative to custom-made Implant Impression trays: An
    Goel M; Dhawan P; Tandan P; Madhukar P
    J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2018; 18(3):271-276. PubMed ID: 30111917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Digital evaluation of the dimensional accuracy of four different implant impression techniques.
    Ozcelik TB; Ozcan I; Ozan O
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1247-1253. PubMed ID: 30297554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Accuracy of Impression Techniques with Maxillary Angled Implants Using Trays and Multifunctional Guides.
    de Souza Bezerra Araújo RF; Oliveira LP; Arioli Filho JN; de Assis Mollo Júnior F
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2021; 36(3):530-537. PubMed ID: 34115068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Quantitative analysis of the selective pressure impression technique using CAD-CAM technology: A pilot clinical study.
    Stein BE; Yoon HI; Mattie H; Lee SJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Dec; 128(6):1289-1294. PubMed ID: 33992466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Different Types of Impression Trays and Impression Materials on the Accuracy of Open Tray Implant Impressions: A Pilot Study.
    Gupta S; Narayan AI; Balakrishnan D
    Int J Dent; 2017; 2017():6306530. PubMed ID: 28348595
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Distortion of disposable plastic stock trays when used with putty vinyl polysiloxane impression materials.
    Cho GC; Chee WW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2004 Oct; 92(4):354-8. PubMed ID: 15507908
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions-An In Vitro Study.
    Ribeiro P; Herrero-Climent M; Díaz-Castro C; Ríos-Santos JV; Padrós R; Mur JG; Falcão C
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2018 Jul; 15(8):. PubMed ID: 30060540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Displacement of Simulated Flabby Tissue by Different Tray Designs and Impression Materials.
    Shin JO; Ko KH; Huh YH; Cho LR; Park CJ
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Apr; 28(4):444-451. PubMed ID: 30767324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A clinical pilot study of the dimensional accuracy of double-arch and complete-arch impressions.
    Cox JR; Brandt RL; Hughes HJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 May; 87(5):510-5. PubMed ID: 12070514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The accuracy of dual-arch impressions: a pilot study.
    Larson TD; Nielsen MA; Brackett WW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Jun; 87(6):625-7. PubMed ID: 12131884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Evaluation of accuracy of various impression techniques and impression materials in recording multiple implants placed unilaterally in a partially edentulous mandible- An
    Parameshwari G; Chittaranjan B; Sudhir N; Anulekha-Avinash CK; Taruna M; Ramureddy M
    J Clin Exp Dent; 2018 Apr; 10(4):e388-e395. PubMed ID: 29750102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Implant impression accuracy of parallel and non-parallel implants: a comparative in-vitro analysis of open and closed tray techniques.
    Osman MS; Ziada HM; Abubakr NH; Suliman AM
    Int J Implant Dent; 2019 Feb; 5(1):4. PubMed ID: 30778790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Accuracy of Different Implant Impression Techniques: Evaluation of New Tray Design Concept.
    Liu DY; Cader FN; Abduo J; Palamara J
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 28(2):e682-e687. PubMed ID: 29286181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Accuracy of Impression Techniques for Dental Implants Placed in Five Different Orientations.
    Kim HS; Lee JH; Lee SY
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2022; 37(5):997-1002. PubMed ID: 36170315
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.