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 *

75 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8884647)

  • 1. Validation of quantitative digital subtraction radiography using the electronically guided alignment device/impression technique.
    Hausmann E; Allen K; Loza J; Buchanan W; Cavanaugh PF
    J Periodontol; 1996 Sep; 67(9):895-9. PubMed ID: 8884647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. The effect of in-vivo-occurring errors in the reproducibility of radiographs on the use of the subtraction technique.
    Janssen PT; van Palenstein Helderman WH; van Aken J
    J Clin Periodontol; 1989 Jan; 16(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 2644313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reproducibility of bone height measurements made on serial radiographs.
    Hausmann E; Allen K
    J Periodontol; 1997 Sep; 68(9):839-41. PubMed ID: 9379327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Analytical methodology in quantitative digital subtraction radiography: analyses of the aluminum reference wedge.
    Allen KM; Hausmann E
    J Periodontol; 1996 Dec; 67(12):1317-21. PubMed ID: 8997679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Image homogeneity and recording reproducibility with 2 techniques for serial intra-oral radiography.
    Sander L; Wenzel A; Hintze H; Karring T
    J Periodontol; 1996 Dec; 67(12):1288-91. PubMed ID: 8997675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effect of impression volume and double-arch trays on the registration of maximum intercuspation.
    Hahn SM; Millstein PL; Kinnunen TH; Wright RF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Dec; 102(6):362-7. PubMed ID: 19961994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of stent versus laser- and cephalostat-aligned periapical film-positioning techniques for use in digital subtraction radiography.
    Ludlow JB; Peleaux CP
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Feb; 77(2):208-15. PubMed ID: 8139840
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays.
    Johnson GH; Mancl LA; Schwedhelm ER; Verhoef DR; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Jan; 103(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 20105676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Efficacy of quantitative digital subtraction radiography using radiographs exposed in a multicenter trial.
    Jeffcoat MK; Reddy MS; Magnusson I; Johnson B; Meredith MP; Cavanaugh PF; Gerlach RW
    J Periodontal Res; 1996 Apr; 31(3):157-60. PubMed ID: 8814584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Pressure generated on a simulated oral analog by impression materials in custom trays of different designs.
    Masri R; Driscoll CF; Burkhardt J; Von Fraunhofer A; Romberg E
    J Prosthodont; 2002 Sep; 11(3):155-60. PubMed ID: 12237795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The 2-minute impression technique.
    Werrin SR
    Quintessence Int; 1996 Mar; 27(3):179-81. PubMed ID: 9063231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Accuracy of a reformulated fast-set vinyl polysiloxane impression material using dual-arch trays.
    Kang AH; Johnson GH; Lepe X; Wataha JC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 May; 101(5):332-41. PubMed ID: 19410067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Influence of tray rigidity and impression technique on accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions.
    Hoyos A; Soderholm KJ
    Int J Prosthodont; 2011; 24(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 21210004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparative study of inter-abutment distance of dies made from full arch dual-arch impression trays with those made from full arch stock trays: an in vitro study.
    Reddy JM; Prashanti E; Kumar GV; Suresh Sajjan MC; Mathew X
    Indian J Dent Res; 2009; 20(4):412-7. PubMed ID: 20139562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A practice-based assessment of the handling of a fast-setting polyvinyl siloxane impression material used with the dual-arch tray technique.
    Burke FJ; Crisp RJ
    Quintessence Int; 2001; 32(10):805-10. PubMed ID: 11820050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Analysis of intra-arch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography.
    White AJ; Fallis DW; Vandewalle KS
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 Apr; 137(4):456.e1-9; discussion 456-7. PubMed ID: 20362900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness.
    Persson AS; Odén A; Andersson M; Sandborgh-Englund G
    Dent Mater; 2009 Jul; 25(7):929-36. PubMed ID: 19264353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Digital subtraction radiography for longitudinal assessment of peri-implant bone change: method and validation.
    Jeffcoat MK; Reddy MS
    Adv Dent Res; 1993 Aug; 7(2):196-201. PubMed ID: 8260008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Accuracy of casts generated from dual-arch impressions.
    Breeding LC; Dixon DL
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Oct; 84(4):403-7. PubMed ID: 11044846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.