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 *

87 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 4940403)

  • 21. The rubber impression for pin restorations.
    Carter R
    Aust Dent J; 1972 Dec; 17(6):434-5. PubMed ID: 4571663
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Elastomeric impression making. Biologic, psychologic, and physical considerations.
    Horn HR
    Dent Clin North Am; 1981 Jul; 25(3):481-92. PubMed ID: 7021237
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. In-office technique to fabricate triple tray.
    Nanda A; Kaur H; Koli D; Manak K; Verma M
    Indian J Dent Res; 2015; 26(6):648-51. PubMed ID: 26888248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Influence of tray design upon elastic impression materials.
    Mitchell JV; Damele JJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 1970 Jan; 23(1):51-7. PubMed ID: 4902404
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Measurement of the accuracy of dental working casts using a coordinate measuring machine.
    Potran M; Štrbac B; Puškar T; Hadžistević M; Hodolič J; Trifković B
    Vojnosanit Pregl; 2016 Oct; 73(10):895-903. PubMed ID: 29327892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Silver plating rubber base material for superior dies and casts.
    Markley MR; Krug RS
    J Prosthet Dent; 1969 Jul; 22(1):103-10. PubMed ID: 4891746
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Elasticity of elastometer impression materials. 11. Permanent deformation.
    Kaloyannides TM
    J Dent Res; 1973; 52(4):719-24. PubMed ID: 4515852
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Quality of materials supplied to dental laboratories for the fabrication of cobalt chromium removable partial dentures in Ireland.
    Lynch CD; Allen PF
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2003 Dec; 11(4):176-80. PubMed ID: 14737795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Accuracy of indirect stone models made from reversible hydrocolloid impressions.
    Nakazato M; Fusayama T
    Bull Tokyo Med Dent Univ; 1971 Mar; 18(1):51-67. PubMed ID: 4930636
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Influence of the type of impression material, impression tray and making impression technology on the dimensional accuracy and depth of impression material penetration into "gingival sulcus". In vitro study].
    Riakhovskiĭ AN; Muradov MA
    Stomatologiia (Mosk); 2005; 84(4):57-64. PubMed ID: 16091710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effect of multiple use of impression copings on the accuracy of implant transfer.
    Alikhasi M; Bassir SH; Naini RB
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013; 28(2):408-14. PubMed ID: 23527342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparison of the accuracy of plastic and metal stock trays for implant impressions.
    Del'acqua MA; de Avila ÉD; Amaral ÂL; Pinelli LA; de Assis Mollo F
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012; 27(3):544-50. PubMed ID: 22616047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Accuracy of 2 impression techniques for ITI implants.
    Akça K; Cehreli MC
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2004; 19(4):517-23. PubMed ID: 15346748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [The question of further processing of an impression].
    Franz G
    Dent Labor (Munch); 1976 Oct; 24(10):1359-67. PubMed ID: 802090
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Dimensional accuracy of 2-stage putty-wash impressions: influence of impression trays and viscosity.
    Balkenhol M; Ferger P; Wöstmann B
    Int J Prosthodont; 2007; 20(6):573-5. PubMed ID: 18069363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro comparative study.
    Sorrentino R; Gherlone EF; Calesini G; Zarone F
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2010 May; 12 Suppl 1():e63-76. PubMed ID: 19438937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Elastic impression materials.
    Asgar K
    Dent Clin North Am; 1971 Jan; 15(1):81-98. PubMed ID: 4923236
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure.
    Menini M; Setti P; Pera F; Pera P; Pesce P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Apr; 22(3):1253-1262. PubMed ID: 28965251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Correlation between the degree of deformation of the stone die and the amount of the master die undercut. Part 1. Single tooth die.
    Murakami H; Takehana S; Abe T; Yamamoto Y; Takenaka M
    Aichi Gakuin Dent Sci; 1989; 2():57-65. PubMed ID: 2701499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Studies on rubber base impression materials. XXIX. Discussions on the setting mechanism of polysulfide rubber as the dental impression material, chiefly viewed from the variations of viscosity and molecular weight. 9. Dynamic properties of formed polysulfide rubber. I.
    Higashi S; Yasuda S; Hiroi K; Ogawa N; Takamatsu H
    J Nihon Univ Sch Dent; 1972 Mar; 14(1):22-7. PubMed ID: 4504521
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.