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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38832462)

  • 21. In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings.
    Conejo J; Yoo TH; Atria PJ; Fraiman H; Blatz MB
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Mar; 131(3):475.e1-475.e7. PubMed ID: 38182453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study.
    Tohme H; Lawand G; Chmielewska M; Makhzoume J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Feb; 129(2):354-362. PubMed ID: 34112521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Influence of intraoral scanning coverage on the accuracy of digital implant impressions - An in vitro study.
    Wang ZY; Gong Y; Liu F; Chen D; Zheng JW; Shen JF
    J Dent; 2024 Apr; 143():104929. PubMed ID: 38458380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle.
    Nagata K; Fuchigami K; Okuhama Y; Wakamori K; Tsuruoka H; Nakashizu T; Hoshi N; Atsumi M; Kimoto K; Kawana H
    BMC Oral Health; 2021 Sep; 21(1):464. PubMed ID: 34556111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Scanning accuracy with splinted and unsplinted implant scan bodies for the edentulous arch at implant level: an in vitro study.
    Garbacea A; Alqahtani AF; Goodacre B; Alhelal A; Lozada J; Kattadiyil MT
    J Oral Implantol; 2022 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 35816623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. EPA Consensus Project Paper: Accuracy of Photogrammetry Devices, Intraoral Scanners, and Conventional Techniques for the Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review.
    Rutkūnas V; Gedrimienė A; Mischitz I; Mijiritsky E; Huber S
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2023 Jun; ():. PubMed ID: 37314199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A guide for selecting the intraoral scan extension when fabricating tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.
    Revilla-León M; Gómez-Polo M; Kois JC
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2024 Jan; 36(1):85-93. PubMed ID: 37789708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparison of Milled Full-Arch Implant-Supported Frameworks Realised with a Full Digital Workflow or from Conventional Impression: A Clinical Study.
    Pera F; Pesce P; Bagnasco F; Pancini N; Carossa M; Baldelli L; Annunziata M; Migliorati M; Baldi D; Menini M
    Materials (Basel); 2023 Jan; 16(2):. PubMed ID: 36676569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Accuracy of digital complete-arch, multi-implant scans made in the edentulous jaw with gingival movement simulation: An in vitro study.
    Knechtle N; Wiedemeier D; Mehl A; Ender A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):468-478. PubMed ID: 33612335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Comparison of Intraoral Scanning Modes in Three Distinct Full- Arch Digital Implant Impression Scenarios: An In Vitro Study.
    Sezer T; Yılmaz E; Esim E
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2024 May; 0(0):1-15. PubMed ID: 38758382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Flügge T; van der Meer WJ; Gonzalez BG; Vach K; Wismeijer D; Wang P
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():374-392. PubMed ID: 30328182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Fit of complete-arch implant-supported prostheses produced from an intraoral scan by using an auxiliary device and from an elastomeric impression: A pilot clinical trial.
    Roig E; Roig M; Garza LC; Costa S; Maia P; Espona J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):404-414. PubMed ID: 33610331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An in vitro study.
    Ke Y; Zhang Y; Wang Y; Chen H; Sun Y
    J Dent; 2023 Aug; 135():104561. PubMed ID: 37236297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine.
    Revilla-León M; Att W; Özcan M; Rubenstein J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP) for full-arch implant impressions: An in vitro comparison to conventional impression, intraoral scan, and intraoral scan with scan-aid.
    Li J; Chen Z; Nava P; Yang S; Calatrava J; Wang HL
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2024 Oct; 26(5):879-888. PubMed ID: 38747500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis when using an auxiliary geometry device.
    Arikan H; Muhtarogullari M; Uzel SM; Guncu MB; Aktas G; Marshall LS; Turkyilmaz I
    J Dent Sci; 2023 Apr; 18(2):808-813. PubMed ID: 37021239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillary full-arch screw-retained prosthesis: A crossover randomized trial.
    Jasim AG; Abo Elezz MG; Altonbary GY; Elsyad MA
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2024 Aug; 26(4):714-723. PubMed ID: 38727015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Comparison of 3D accuracy of three different digital intraoral scanners in full-arch implant impressions.
    Akkal O; Korkmaz IH; Bayindir F
    J Adv Prosthodont; 2023 Aug; 15(4):179-188. PubMed ID: 37662853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions.
    Albayrak B; Sukotjo C; Wee AG; Korkmaz İH; Bayındır F
    J Prosthodont; 2021 Feb; 30(2):163-170. PubMed ID: 32935894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.