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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9028226)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. The precision of fit at the implant prosthodontic interface.
    May KB; Edge MJ; Russell MM; Razzoog ME; Lang BR
    J Prosthet Dent; 1997 May; 77(5):497-502. PubMed ID: 9151270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Periotest method: implant-supported framework fit evaluation in vivo.
    May KB; Lang BR; Lang BE; Wang RF
    J Prosthet Dent; 1998 Jun; 79(6):648-57. PubMed ID: 9627893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Comparison of strains transferred to a bone simulant between as-cast and postsoldered implant frameworks for a five-implant-supported fixed prosthesis.
    Clelland NL; Carr AB; Gilat A
    J Prosthodont; 1996 Sep; 5(3):193-200. PubMed ID: 9028224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Mechanical state assessment of the implant-bone continuum: a better understanding of the Periotest method.
    Tricio J; Laohapand P; van Steenberghe D; Quirynen M; Naert I
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1995; 10(1):43-9. PubMed ID: 7615316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Stability of the bone-implant complex. Results of longitudinal testing to 60 months with the Periotest device on endosseous dental implants.
    Truhlar RS; Morris HF; Ochi S
    Ann Periodontol; 2000 Dec; 5(1):42-55. PubMed ID: 11885181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Effect of feldspathic porcelain layering on the marginal fit of zirconia and titanium complete-arch fixed implant-supported frameworks.
    Yilmaz B; Alshahrani FA; Kale E; Johnston WM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Jul; 120(1):71-78. PubMed ID: 29426786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. The ankylos endosseous dental implant: assessment of stability up to 18 months with the Periotest.
    Morris HF; Winkler S; Ochi S
    J Oral Implantol; 2000; 26(4):291-9. PubMed ID: 11831235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Damping characteristics of bone-to-implant interfaces. A clinical study with the Periotest device.
    van Steenberghe D; Tricio J; Naert I; Nys M
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 1995 Mar; 6(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 7669865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Precision of fit and retention force of cast non-precious-crowns on standard titanium implant-abutment with different design and height.
    Enkling N; Ueda T; Gholami H; Bayer S; Katsoulis J; Mericske-Stern R
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2014 Apr; 25(4):451-7. PubMed ID: 23551713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Implant stability related to insertion torque force and bone density: An in vitro study.
    Tricio J; van Steenberghe D; Rosenberg D; Duchateau L
    J Prosthet Dent; 1995 Dec; 74(6):608-12. PubMed ID: 8778385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Fit of implant frameworks: an in vitro comparison between two fabrication techniques.
    Takahashi T; Gunne J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Mar; 89(3):256-60. PubMed ID: 12644800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Implant/abutment vertical misfit of one-piece cast frameworks made with different materials.
    Barbosa GA; das Neves FD; de Mattos Mda G; Rodrigues RC; Ribeiro RF
    Braz Dent J; 2010; 21(6):515-9. PubMed ID: 21271041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.
    Al-Abdullah K; Zandparsa R; Finkelman M; Hirayama H
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Aug; 110(2):90-100. PubMed ID: 23929370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.