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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

407 related items for PubMed ID: 23725094

  • 1. The effect of different restorative and abutment materials on marginal and internal adaptation of three-unit cantilever implant-supported fixed partial dentures: an in vitro study.
    Kahramanoğlu E, Kulak-Özkan Y.
    J Prosthodont; 2013 Dec; 22(8):608-17. PubMed ID: 23725094
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of press-on-metal and conventional ceramic systems for three- and four-unit implant-supported partial fixed dental prostheses: An in vitro study.
    Bayramoğlu E, Özkan YK, Yildiz C.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Jul; 114(1):52-8. PubMed ID: 25858218
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Marginal and internal adaptation of different superstructure and abutment materials using two different implant systems for five-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures: an in vitro study.
    Kahramanoğlu E, Kulak-Ozkan Y.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2013 Jul; 28(5):1207-16. PubMed ID: 24066310
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Effect of splinting in accuracy of two implant impression techniques.
    de Avila ED, de Matos Moraes F, Castanharo SM, Del'Acqua MA, de Assis Mollo F.
    J Oral Implantol; 2014 Dec; 40(6):633-9. PubMed ID: 25506658
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. The influence of verification jig on framework fit for nonsegmented fixed implant-supported complete denture.
    Ercoli C, Geminiani A, Feng C, Lee H.
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 May; 14 Suppl 1():e188-95. PubMed ID: 22176765
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Influence of CAD/CAM on the fit accuracy of implant-supported zirconia and cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses.
    de França DG, Morais MH, das Neves FD, Barbosa GA.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Jan; 113(1):22-8. PubMed ID: 25277028
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Comparison of impression techniques and materials for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA, Chávez AM, Amaral AL, Compagnoni MA, Mollo Fde A.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010 Jan; 25(4):771-6. PubMed ID: 20657873
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Evaluation of the sealing capability of implants to titanium and zirconia abutments against Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, and Fusobacterium nucleatum under different screw torque values.
    Smith NA, Turkyilmaz I.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Sep; 112(3):561-7. PubMed ID: 24656409
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 12. A comparative study of the accuracy between plastic and metal impression transfer copings for implant restorations.
    Fernandez MA, Paez de Mendoza CY, Platt JA, Levon JA, Hovijitra ST, Nimmo A.
    J Prosthodont; 2013 Jul; 22(5):367-76. PubMed ID: 23387412
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Marginal discrepancy of CAD-CAM complete-arch fixed implant-supported frameworks.
    Yilmaz B, Kale E, Johnston WM.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Jul; 120(1):65-70. PubMed ID: 29475755
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Accuracy of impression techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis.
    Del'Acqua MA, Chávez AM, Compagnoni MA, Molo Fde A.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010 Jul; 25(4):715-21. PubMed ID: 20657866
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. A comparison of fit of CNC-milled titanium and zirconia frameworks to implants.
    Abduo J, Lyons K, Waddell N, Bennani V, Swain M.
    Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2012 May; 14 Suppl 1():e20-9. PubMed ID: 21414138
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Accuracy of different impression techniques for internal-connection implants.
    Lee YJ, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Kim SK.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009 May; 24(5):823-30. PubMed ID: 19865622
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Marginal fit and photoelastic stress analysis of CAD-CAM and overcast 3-unit implant-supported frameworks.
    Presotto AG, Bhering CL, Mesquita MF, Barão VA.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Mar; 117(3):373-379. PubMed ID: 27666497
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Fracture force of tooth-tooth- and implant-tooth-supported all-ceramic fixed partial dentures using titanium vs. customised zirconia implant abutments.
    Kolbeck C, Behr M, Rosentritt M, Handel G.
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2008 Oct; 19(10):1049-53. PubMed ID: 18707604
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Marginal accuracy of three implant-ceramic abutment configurations.
    Baldassarri M, Hjerppe J, Romeo D, Fickl S, Thompson VP, Stappert CF.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2012 Oct; 27(3):537-43. PubMed ID: 22616046
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. The effect of different screw-tightening techniques on the strain generated on an internal-connection implant superstructure. Part 2: Models created with a splinted impression technique.
    Choi JH.
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011 Oct; 26(5):1016-23. PubMed ID: 22010085
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 21.