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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38648874)

  • 1. Evaluating the influence of palate scanning on the accuracy of complete-arch digital impressions-An in vitro study.
    Schmalzl J; Keskeny GÁ; Hermann P; Pál A; Géczi Z; Borbély J; Róth I
    J Dent; 2024 Jun; 145():105014. PubMed ID: 38648874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Deviations in palatal region between indirect and direct digital models: an in vivo study.
    Zhongpeng Y; Tianmin X; Ruoping J
    BMC Oral Health; 2019 Apr; 19(1):66. PubMed ID: 31029133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Influence of scan technology on the accuracy and speed of intraoral scanning systems for the edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study.
    Osman RB; Alharbi NM
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Dec; 32(9):821-828. PubMed ID: 36571837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: A single-blinded in vitro study.
    Michelinakis G; Apostolakis D; Tsagarakis A; Kourakis G; Pavlakis E
    J Prosthet Dent; 2020 Nov; 124(5):581-588. PubMed ID: 31870614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A comparative study assessing the precision and trueness of digital and printed casts produced from several intraoral and extraoral scanners in full arch and short span (3-unit FPD) scanning: An in vitro study.
    Ellakany P; Aly NM; Al-Harbi F
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Jun; 32(5):423-430. PubMed ID: 35852379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.
    Renne W; Ludlow M; Fryml J; Schurch Z; Mennito A; Kessler R; Lauer A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Jul; 118(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 28024822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Trueness and precision of complete arch dentate digital models produced by intraoral and desktop scanners: An ex-vivo study.
    Vag J; Stevens CD; Badahman MH; Ludlow M; Sharp M; Brenes C; Mennito A; Renne W
    J Dent; 2023 Dec; 139():104764. PubMed ID: 37898433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans.
    Resende CCD; Barbosa TAQ; Moura GF; Tavares LDN; Rizzante FAP; George FM; Neves FDD; Mendonça G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Feb; 125(2):294-299. PubMed ID: 32115221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner.
    Müller P; Ender A; Joda T; Katsoulis J
    Quintessence Int; 2016 Apr; 47(4):343-9. PubMed ID: 26824085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of auxiliary geometric devices on the accuracy of intraoral scans in full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations: An in vitro study.
    Canullo L; Pesce P; Caponio VCA; Iacono R; Luciani FS; Raffone C; Menini M
    J Dent; 2024 Jun; 145():104979. PubMed ID: 38556193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Error propagation from intraoral scanning to additive manufacturing of complete-arch dentate models: An in vitro study.
    Auškalnis L; Akulauskas M; Jegelevičius D; Simonaitis T; Rutkūnas V
    J Dent; 2022 Jun; 121():104136. PubMed ID: 35460866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Trueness of maxillomandibular relationship in 3D-printed and conventional casts.
    Auškalnis L; Akulauskas M; Osnes C; Revilla-León M; Kernen-Gintautė A; Rutkūnas V
    J Dent; 2024 Sep; 148():105044. PubMed ID: 38710316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Trueness of intraoral scanning of edentulous arches: A comparative clinical study.
    Al Hamad KQ; Al-Kaff FT
    J Prosthodont; 2023 Jan; 32(1):26-31. PubMed ID: 35997079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of Different Intraoral Scanners on the Accuracy of Bite Registration in Edentulous Maxillary and Mandibular Arches.
    Rutkūnas V; Jegelevičius D; Gedrimienė A; Auškalnis L; Eyüboğlu TF; Özcan M; Al-Haj Husain N; Akulauskas M; Pletkus J
    J Dent; 2024 Jul; 146():105050. PubMed ID: 38735468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner.
    Revilla-León M; Subramanian SG; Özcan M; Krishnamurthy VR
    J Prosthodont; 2020 Feb; 29(2):107-113. PubMed ID: 31860144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Influence of ambient light conditions on the accuracy and scanning time of seven intraoral scanners in complete-arch implant scans.
    Ochoa-López G; Cascos R; Antonaya-Martín JL; Revilla-León M; Gómez-Polo M
    J Dent; 2022 Jun; 121():104138. PubMed ID: 35461973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Understanding the effect of scan spans on the accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners.
    Chen Y; Zhai Z; Watanabe S; Nakano T; Ishigaki S
    J Dent; 2022 Sep; 124():104220. PubMed ID: 35817227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
    Ender A; Mehl A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.