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: 38739826)

  • 41. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study.
    Alshawaf B; Weber HP; Finkelman M; El Rafie K; Kudara Y; Papaspyridakos P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Aug; 29(8):835-842. PubMed ID: 29926977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. Pressure generated on a simulated oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different designs.
    Masri R; Driscoll CF; Burkhardt J; Von Fraunhofer A; Romberg E
    J Prosthodont; 2002 Sep; 11(3):155-60. PubMed ID: 12237795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Three-dimensional analysis of dual-arch impression trays.
    Cayouette MJ; Burgess JO; Jones RE; Yuan CH
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Mar; 34(3):189-98. PubMed ID: 12731600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. Dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials in custom-made and stock trays.
    Valderhaug J; Fløystrand F
    J Prosthet Dent; 1984 Oct; 52(4):514-7. PubMed ID: 6389833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Evaluation of Dimensional Accuracy of Three Combinations of Polyvinyl Siloxane Impression Material: An
    Mahagaonkar PA; Angadi PB; Naik NR; Kakatkar V; Manjunath SH; Sonawane YS
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2020 Feb; 21(2):190-196. PubMed ID: 32381826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. A clinical comparison of two vinyl polysiloxane impression materials using the one-step technique.
    Raigrodski AJ; Dogan S; Mancl LA; Heindl H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Sep; 102(3):179-86. PubMed ID: 19703625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Application of FDM three-dimensional printing technology in the digital manufacture of custom edentulous mandible trays.
    Chen H; Yang X; Chen L; Wang Y; Sun Y
    Sci Rep; 2016 Jan; 6():19207. PubMed ID: 26763620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Evaluation of dental arch reproduction using three-dimensional optical digitization.
    Brosky ME; Major RJ; DeLong R; Hodges JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Nov; 90(5):434-40. PubMed ID: 14586306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy.
    Brosky ME; Pesun IJ; Lowder PD; Delong R; Hodges JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Feb; 87(2):204-9. PubMed ID: 11854678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study.
    Lee H; Ercoli C; Funkenbusch PD; Feng C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):107-13. PubMed ID: 18262011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Determining the accuracy of stock and custom tray impression/casts.
    Millstein P; Maya A; Segura C
    J Oral Rehabil; 1998 Aug; 25(8):645-8. PubMed ID: 9781870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. 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]  

  • 57. Tensile bond strength of polyvinyl siloxane impressions bonded to a custom tray as a function of drying time: Part I.
    Cho GC; Donovan TE; Chee WW; White SN
    J Prosthet Dent; 1995 May; 73(5):419-23. PubMed ID: 7658389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. [Establishment and preliminary clinical evaluation of edentulous custom trays designed and fabricated by chair-side CAD and 3D printing systems].
    Wang KP; Ye HQ; Chen H; Wang Y; Sun YC; Zhou YS
    Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2019 Apr; 51(2):349-355. PubMed ID: 30996381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Dimensional accuracy of a new polyether impression material.
    Endo T; Finger WJ
    Quintessence Int; 2006 Jan; 37(1):47-51. PubMed ID: 16429703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Reproducibility of sterilized rubber impressions.
    Abdelaziz KM; Hassan AM; Hodges JS
    Braz Dent J; 2004; 15(3):209-13. PubMed ID: 15798825
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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