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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8038342)

  • 1. Photogrammetric measurements of implant positions. Description of a technique to determine the fit between implants and superstructures.
    Lie A; Jemt T
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 1994 Mar; 5(1):30-6. PubMed ID: 8038342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Photogrammetric method to measure the discrepancy between clinical and software-designed positions of implants.
    Rivara F; Lumetti S; Calciolari E; Toffoli A; Forlani G; Manfredi E
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Jun; 115(6):703-11. PubMed ID: 26794693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses.
    Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Photogrammetry--an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study.
    Jemt T; Bäck T; Petersson A
    Int J Prosthodont; 1999; 12(4):363-8. PubMed ID: 10635208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw: analysis of precision of fit between cast gold-alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three-dimensional photogrammetric technique.
    Jemt T; Lie A
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 1995 Sep; 6(3):172-80. PubMed ID: 7578793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.
    Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Mancl L; Brudvik JS; Raigrodski AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Oct; 110(4):243-51. PubMed ID: 24079558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cyclic loading of implant-supported prostheses: comparison of gaps at the prosthetic-abutment interface when cycled abutments are replaced with as-manufactured abutments.
    Hecker DM; Eckert SE; Choi YG
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Jan; 95(1):26-32. PubMed ID: 16399272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of a new method to achieve optimal passivity of implant-supported superstructures.
    Goossens IC; Herbst D
    SADJ; 2003 Aug; 58(7):279-85, 287. PubMed ID: 14649041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Three-dimensional distortion of gold alloy castings and welded titanium frameworks. Measurements of the precision of fit between completed implant prostheses and the master casts in routine edentulous situations.
    Jemt T
    J Oral Rehabil; 1995 Aug; 22(8):557-64. PubMed ID: 7472725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Periotest method: implant-supported framework precision of fit evaluation.
    May KB; Edge MJ; Lang BR; Wang RF
    J Prosthodont; 1996 Sep; 5(3):206-13. PubMed ID: 9028226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Measurement of the rotational misfit and implant-abutment gap of all-ceramic abutments.
    Garine WN; Funkenbusch PD; Ercoli C; Wodenscheck J; Murphy WC
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2007; 22(6):928-38. PubMed ID: 18271374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. An in vivo quantitative analysis of the fit of Nobel Biocare implant superstructures.
    Cheshire PD; Hobkirk JA
    J Oral Rehabil; 1996 Nov; 23(11):782-9. PubMed ID: 8953484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Precision of CNC-milled titanium frameworks for implant treatment in the edentulous jaw.
    Jemt T; Bäck T; Petersson A
    Int J Prosthodont; 1999; 12(3):209-15. PubMed ID: 10635187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. In vivo measurements of precision of fit involving implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw.
    Jemt T
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1996; 11(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 8666445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cyclic loading of implant-supported prostheses: changes in component fit over time.
    Hecker DM; Eckert SE
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Apr; 89(4):346-51. PubMed ID: 12690346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mucosal topography around implants in edentulous upper jaws. Photogrammetric three-dimensional measurements of the effect of replacement of a removable prosthesis with a fixed prosthesis.
    Jemt T; Book K; Lie A; Börjesson T
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 1994 Dec; 5(4):220-8. PubMed ID: 7640336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Improving the fit of implant-supported superstructures using the spark erosion technique.
    Eisenmann E; Mokabberi A; Walter MH; Freesmeyer WB
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2004; 19(6):810-8. PubMed ID: 15623055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Impression of multiple implants using photogrammetry: description of technique and case presentation.
    Peñarrocha-Oltra D; Agustín-Panadero R; Bagán L; Giménez B; Peñarrocha M
    Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal; 2014 Jul; 19(4):e366-71. PubMed ID: 24608216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. In vitro precision of fit of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing titanium and zirconium dioxide bars.
    Katsoulis J; Mericske-Stern R; Yates DM; Izutani N; Enkling N; Blatz MB
    Dent Mater; 2013 Sep; 29(9):945-53. PubMed ID: 23890960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. In vitro fit of CAD-CAM complete arch screw-retained titanium and zirconia implant prostheses fabricated on 4 implants.
    Al-Meraikhi H; Yilmaz B; McGlumphy E; Brantley W; Johnston WM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Mar; 119(3):409-416. PubMed ID: 28720339
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.