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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8270314)

  • 1. Evaluation of master cast techniques for multiple abutment implant prostheses.
    Vigolo P; Millstein PL
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1993; 8(4):439-46. PubMed ID: 8270314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions.
    Vigolo P; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):186-92. PubMed ID: 12616240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of the accuracy of two removable die systems with intact working casts.
    Aramouni P; Millstein P
    Int J Prosthodont; 1993; 6(6):533-9. PubMed ID: 8148023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Fit of implant-supported fixed prostheses fabricated on master casts made from a dental stone and a dental plaster.
    Wise M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Nov; 86(5):532-8. PubMed ID: 11725282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of the implant master cast by means of the Periotest method.
    May KB; Curtis A; Wang RF
    Implant Dent; 1999; 8(2):133-40. PubMed ID: 10635155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Master cast accuracy in single-tooth implant replacement cases: an in vitro comparison. A technical note.
    Vigolo P; Fonzi F; Majzoub Z; Cordioli G
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2005; 20(3):455-60. PubMed ID: 15973958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Implant cast accuracy as a function of impression techniques and impression material viscosity.
    Walker MP; Ries D; Borello B
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(4):669-74. PubMed ID: 18807563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect of splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques on the accuracy of fit of fixed implant prostheses in edentulous patients: a comparative study.
    Papaspyridakos P; Lal K; White GS; Weber HP; Gallucci GO
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(6):1267-72. PubMed ID: 22167432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy of impressions and casts using different implant impression techniques in a multi-implant system with an internal hex connection.
    Wenz HJ; Hertrampf K
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(1):39-47. PubMed ID: 18416411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Improving implant framework passive fit and accuracy through the use of verification stents and casts.
    Schneider A; Kurtzman GM; Silverstein LH
    J Dent Technol; 2001 Jun; 18(4):23-5. PubMed ID: 11933718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Accuracy of implant impression splinted techniques: effect of splinting material.
    Assif D; Nissan J; Varsano I; Singer A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1999; 14(6):885-8. PubMed ID: 10612928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of the accuracy of 3 transfer techniques for implant-supported prostheses with multiple abutments.
    Naconecy MM; Teixeira ER; Shinkai RS; Frasca LC; Cervieri A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2004; 19(2):192-8. PubMed ID: 15101589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA; Arioli-Filho JN; Compagnoni MA; Mollo Fde A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(2):226-36. PubMed ID: 18548918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Technique for achieving a passive framework fit: a clinical case report.
    Swallow ST
    J Oral Implantol; 2004; 30(2):83-92. PubMed ID: 15119457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy of 3 conceptually different die systems used for implant casts.
    Wee AG; Cheng AC; Eskridge RN
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Jan; 87(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 11807480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. A classification system to measure the implant-abutment microgap.
    Kano SC; Binon PP; Curtis DA
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2007; 22(6):879-85. PubMed ID: 18271368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit.
    Papaspyridakos P; Hirayama H; Chen CJ; Ho CH; Chronopoulos V; Weber HP
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Sep; 27(9):1099-105. PubMed ID: 26374268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Accuracy of impressions for internal-connection implant prostheses with various divergent angles.
    Jang HK; Kim S; Shim JS; Lee KW; Moon HS
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(5):1011-5. PubMed ID: 22010084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.