131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9425760)
1. Comparison of strains produced in a bone simulant between conventional cast and resin-luted implant frameworks.
Clelland NL; van Putten MC
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 1997; 12(6):793-9. PubMed ID: 9425760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Dimensional accuracy and retentive strength of a retrievable cement-retained implant-supported prosthesis.
Randi AP; Hsu AT; Verga A; Kim JJ
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2001; 16(4):547-56. PubMed ID: 11516002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Biomechanical comparison of axial and tilted implants for mandibular full-arch fixed prostheses.
Kim KS; Kim YL; Bae JM; Cho HW
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(5):976-84. PubMed ID: 22010079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. On the role of number of fixtures, surgical technique and timing of loading.
Eliasson A
Swed Dent J Suppl; 2008; (197):3-95. PubMed ID: 18652085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis.
Watanabe F; Uno I; Hata Y; Neuendorff G; Kirsch A
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2000; 15(2):209-18. PubMed ID: 10795453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparisons of precision of fit between cast and CNC-milled titanium implant frameworks for the edentulous mandible.
Ortorp A; Jemt T; Bäck T; Jälevik T
Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(2):194-200. PubMed ID: 12737254
[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. Scanning electron microscope evaluation of vertical and horizontal discrepancy in cast copings for single-tooth implant-supported prostheses.
Siadat H; Alikhasi M; Mirfazaelian A; Zade MM
Implant Dent; 2008 Sep; 17(3):299-308. PubMed ID: 18784530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effect of provisional restoration type on micromovement of implants.
Holst S; Geiselhoeringer H; Wichmann M; Holst AI
J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Sep; 100(3):173-82. PubMed ID: 18762029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Clinical experiences with laser-welded titanium frameworks supported by implants in the edentulous mandible: a 5-year follow-up study.
Ortorp A; Linden B; Jemt T
Int J Prosthodont; 1999; 12(1):65-72. PubMed ID: 10196830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Clinical experiences with laser-welded titanium frameworks supported by implants in the edentulous mandible: a 10-year follow-up study.
Ortorp A; Jemt T
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2006; 8(4):198-209. PubMed ID: 17100745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns.
Kim Y; Yamashita J; Shotwell JL; Chong KH; Wang HL
J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Jun; 95(6):450-5. PubMed ID: 16765158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Immediate function with fixed implant-supported maxillary dentures: a 12-month pilot study.
Tealdo T; Bevilacqua M; Pera F; Menini M; Ravera G; Drago C; Pera P
J Prosthet Dent; 2008 May; 99(5):351-60. PubMed ID: 18456046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of strains transferred to a bone simulant among implant overdenture bars with various levels of misfit.
Clelland NL; Papazoglou E; Carr AB; Gilat A
J Prosthodont; 1995 Dec; 4(4):243-50. PubMed ID: 8601182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Dynamic fatigue properties of the dental implant-abutment interface: joint opening in wide-diameter versus standard-diameter hex-type implants.
Hoyer SA; Stanford CM; Buranadham S; Fridrich T; Wagner J; Gratton D
J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Jun; 85(6):599-607. PubMed ID: 11404760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
