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)

  • 21. In vitro vertical misfit evaluation of cast frameworks for cement-retained implant-supported partial prostheses.
    Oyagüe RC; Turrión AS; Toledano M; Monticelli F; Osorio R
    J Dent; 2009 Jan; 37(1):52-8. PubMed ID: 18951675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model.
    Carr AB
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1991; 6(4):448-55. PubMed ID: 1820314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants.
    Conrad HJ; Pesun IJ; DeLong R; Hodges JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Jun; 97(6):349-56. PubMed ID: 17618917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Cementable implant crowns composed of cast superstructure frameworks luted to electroformed primary copings: an in vitro retention study.
    Di Felice R; Rappelli G; Camaioni E; Cattani M; Meyer JM; Belser UC
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2007 Feb; 18(1):108-13. PubMed ID: 17224031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The effect of storage time on the accuracy and dimensional stability of reversible hydrocolloid impression material.
    Schleier PE; Gardner FM; Nelson SK; Pashley DH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Sep; 86(3):244-50. PubMed ID: 11552162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Evaluation of the accuracy of implant-level impression techniques for internal-connection implant prostheses in parallel and divergent models.
    Choi JH; Lim YJ; Yim SH; Kim CW
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2007; 22(5):761-8. PubMed ID: 17974110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Marginal fit of cemented and screw-retained crowns incorporated on the Straumann (ITI) Dental Implant System: an in vitro study.
    Tosches NA; Brägger U; Lang NP
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2009 Jan; 20(1):79-86. PubMed ID: 19126111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The suitability of head-of-implant and conventional abutment impression techniques for implant-retained three unit bridges: an in vitro study.
    Bartlett DW; Greenwood R; Howe L
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2002 Dec; 10(4):163-6. PubMed ID: 12526273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Displacement of implant components from impressions to definitive casts.
    Kim S; Nicholls JI; Han CH; Lee KW
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2006; 21(5):747-55. PubMed ID: 17066636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The effect of adding a stone base on the accuracy of working casts using different types of dental stone.
    Al-Abidi K; Ellakwa A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Sep; 7(4):17-28. PubMed ID: 16957787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Accuracy of implant impression techniques.
    Assif D; Marshak B; Schmidt A
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1996; 11(2):216-22. PubMed ID: 8666454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Dimensional accuracy analysis of implant framework castings from 2 casting systems.
    Chang TL; Maruyama C; White SN; Son S; Caputo AA
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2005; 20(5):720-5. PubMed ID: 16274145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A comparison of the accuracy of fit of 2 methods for fabricating implant-prosthodontic frameworks.
    Al-Fadda SA; Zarb GA; Finer Y
    Int J Prosthodont; 2007; 20(2):125-31. PubMed ID: 17455431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Impression techniques and misfit-induced strains on implant-supported superstructures: an in vitro study.
    Cehreli MC; Akça K
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2006 Aug; 26(4):379-85. PubMed ID: 16939020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A comparison of dimensional accuracy between three different addition cured silicone impression materials.
    Forrester-Baker L; Seymour KG; Samarawickrama D; Zou L; Cherukara G; Patel M
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2005 Jun; 13(2):69-74. PubMed ID: 16011234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant transfer techniques.
    Hsu CC; Millstein PL; Stein RS
    J Prosthet Dent; 1993 Jun; 69(6):588-93. PubMed ID: 8320644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The accuracy of implant master casts constructed from transfer impressions.
    Humphries RM; Yaman P; Bloem TJ
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1990; 5(4):331-6. PubMed ID: 2094651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The three-dimensional casting distortion of five implant-supported frameworks.
    Mitha T; Owen CP; Howes DG
    Int J Prosthodont; 2009; 22(3):248-50. PubMed ID: 19548406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.