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 *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38703808)

  • 21. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.
    Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts.
    Buda M; Bratos M; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Dec; 120(6):913-918. PubMed ID: 29961627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Effect of dental technician disparities on the 3-dimensional accuracy of definitive casts.
    Emir F; Piskin B; Sipahi C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Mar; 117(3):410-418. PubMed ID: 27677213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness.
    Persson AS; Odén A; Andersson M; Sandborgh-Englund G
    Dent Mater; 2009 Jul; 25(7):929-36. PubMed ID: 19264353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Trueness of 3-dimensionally printed complete arch implant analog casts.
    Gagnon-Audet A; An H; Jensen UF; Bratos M; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Aug; ():. PubMed ID: 37558526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Photogrammetry and conventional impressions for recording implant positions: a comparative laboratory study.
    Ortorp A; Jemt T; Bäck T
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2005; 7(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15903174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions.
    Wee AG
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Mar; 83(3):323-31. PubMed ID: 10709042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Dimensional Stability of Additively Manufactured Diagnostic Maxillary Casts Fabricated with Different Model Resins.
    Dönmez MB; Wepfer AB; Güven ME; Çakmak G; Schimmel M; Yilmaz B
    Int J Prosthodont; 2024 Feb; 37(7):119-126. PubMed ID: 38498863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Trueness and Precision Achieved With Conventional and Digital Implant Impressions: A Comparative Investigation of Stone Versus 3-D Printed Master Casts.
    Mathey A; Brägger U; Joda T
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2021 Aug; 29(3):. PubMed ID: 33508182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Accuracy of different impression techniques for internal-connection implants.
    Lee YJ; Heo SJ; Koak JY; Kim SK
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(5):823-30. PubMed ID: 19865622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach.
    Stimmelmayr M; Erdelt K; Güth JF; Happe A; Beuer F
    Clin Oral Investig; 2012 Aug; 16(4):1137-42. PubMed ID: 22009182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: an in vitro study.
    Caputi S; Varvara G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Apr; 99(4):274-81. PubMed ID: 18395537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Effects of reheating on the accuracy of addition silicone putty-wash impressions.
    Tjan AH; Li T
    J Prosthet Dent; 1991 Jun; 65(6):743-8. PubMed ID: 2072314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Positional trueness of abutments by using a digital die-merging protocol compared with complete arch direct digital scans and conventional dental impressions.
    Jelicich A; Scialabba R; Lee SJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Feb; 131(2):293-300. PubMed ID: 35430047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Accuracy of implant impression techniques with a scannable healing abutment.
    Jung HT; Kim HY; Song SY; Park JH; Lee JY
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Oct; 128(4):729-734. PubMed ID: 33832762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Digital evaluation of the accuracy of impression techniques and materials in angulated implants.
    Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S; Ozan O; Ozcelik TB; Yagiz A
    J Dent; 2014 Dec; 42(12):1551-9. PubMed ID: 25446736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Accuracy of three implant impression techniques with different impression materials and stones.
    Chang WG; Vahidi F; Bae KH; Lim BS
    Int J Prosthodont; 2012; 25(1):44-7. PubMed ID: 22259795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Effect of Multiple Use of Impression Copings and Scanbodies on Implant Cast Accuracy.
    Sawyers J; Baig MR; El-Masoud B
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019; 34(4):891–898. PubMed ID: 31107939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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