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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9699436)

  • 21. The effect of a surface wetting agent on void formation in impressions.
    Millar BJ; Dunne SM; Robinson PB
    J Prosthet Dent; 1997 Jan; 77(1):54-6. PubMed ID: 9029466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Accuracy of one-step versus two-step putty wash addition silicone impression technique.
    Hung SH; Purk JH; Tira DE; Eick JD
    J Prosthet Dent; 1992 May; 67(5):583-9. PubMed ID: 1527737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Wettability of elastomeric impression materials and voids in gypsum casts.
    Cullen DR; Mikesell JW; Sandrik JL
    J Prosthet Dent; 1991 Aug; 66(2):261-5. PubMed ID: 1774689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Dimensional accuracy and surface detail reproduction of two hydrophilic vinyl polysiloxane impression materials tested under dry, moist, and wet conditions.
    Petrie CS; Walker MP; O'mahony AM; Spencer P
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Oct; 90(4):365-72. PubMed ID: 14564291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Reliability of the impression replica technique.
    Falk A; Vult von Steyern P; Fransson H; Thorén MM
    Int J Prosthodont; 2015; 28(2):179-80. PubMed ID: 25822305
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions.
    Wee AG
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Mar; 83(3):323-31. PubMed ID: 10709042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A comparison of the accuracy of polyether, polyvinyl siloxane, and plaster impressions for long-span implant-supported prostheses.
    Hoods-Moonsammy VJ; Owen P; Howes DG
    Int J Prosthodont; 2014; 27(5):433-8. PubMed ID: 25191885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Detail reproduction, contact angles, and die hardness of elastomeric impression and gypsum die material combinations.
    Ragain JC; Grosko ML; Raj M; Ryan TN; Johnston WM
    Int J Prosthodont; 2000; 13(3):214-20. PubMed ID: 11203635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. An in vitro study on the dimensional stability of a vinyl polyether silicone impression material over a prolonged storage period.
    Nassar U; Oko A; Adeeb S; El-Rich M; Flores-Mir C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Mar; 109(3):172-8. PubMed ID: 23522366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Accuracy of implant impressions with different impression coping types and shapes.
    Rashidan N; Alikhasi M; Samadizadeh S; Beyabanaki E; Kharazifard MJ
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 Apr; 14(2):218-25. PubMed ID: 19804420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Evaluation of accuracy of casts of multiple internal connection implant prosthesis obtained from different impression materials and techniques: an in vitro study.
    Pujari M; Garg P; Prithviraj DR
    J Oral Implantol; 2014 Apr; 40(2):137-45. PubMed ID: 24456531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Influence of disinfection with peracetic acid and hypochlorite in dimensional alterations of casts obtained from addition silicone and polyether impressions.
    Queiroz DA; Peçanha MM; Neves AC; Frizzera F; Tonetto MR; Silva-Concílio LR
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2013 Nov; 14(6):1100-5. PubMed ID: 24858758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The influence of tray type and other variables on the palatal depth of casts made from irreversible hydrocolloid impressions.
    Frank RP; Thielke SM; Johnson GH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Jan; 87(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 11807479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [Setting expansion of dental stone in hydrophilic addition type silicone impression].
    Kakuta K; Ogura H; Miyagawa Y; Kashiwagi Y
    Shika Zairyo Kikai; 1989 Sep; 8(5):736-40. PubMed ID: 2490217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Dimensional stability and detail reproduction of irreversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impressions disinfected by immersion.
    Johnson GH; Chellis KD; Gordon GE; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 1998 Apr; 79(4):446-53. PubMed ID: 9576321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Clinical efficacy of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials using the one-step two-viscosity impression technique.
    Dogan S; Schwedhelm ER; Heindl H; Mancl L; Raigrodski AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Aug; 114(2):217-22. PubMed ID: 25976708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Comparison of the surface detail reproduction of flexible die material systems.
    Gerrow JD; Price RB
    J Prosthet Dent; 1998 Oct; 80(4):485-9. PubMed ID: 9791798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Gingival sulcus simulation model for evaluating the penetration characteristics of elastomeric impression materials.
    Aimjirakul P; Masuda T; Takahashi H; Miura H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(4):385-9. PubMed ID: 12956493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Dimensional accuracy of stone casts made from silicone-based impression materials and three impression techniques.
    Vitti RP; da Silva MA; Consani RL; Sinhoreti MA
    Braz Dent J; 2013; 24(5):498-502. PubMed ID: 24474292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.