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.
3. Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners. Jeon JH, Choi BY, Kim CM, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):549-53. PubMed ID: 26182854 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Repeatability and reproducibility of individual abutment impression, assessed with a blue light scanner. Jeon JH, Kim DY, Lee JJ, Kim JH, Kim WC. J Adv Prosthodont; 2016 Jun; 8(3):214-8. PubMed ID: 27350856 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions. Carbajal Mejía JB, Wakabayashi K, Nakamura T, Yatani H. J Prosthet Dent; 2017 Sep; 118(3):392-399. PubMed ID: 28222873 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scans of stone models and impressions using a blue LED scanner. Jeon JH, Jung ID, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Dent Mater J; 2015 Sep; 34(5):686-91. PubMed ID: 26438993 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of abutment tooth location on the accuracy of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner for removable partial dentures. Sakamoto K, Wada J, Arai Y, Hayama H, Ishioka Y, Kim EY, Kazama R, Toyoshima Y, Wakabayashi N. J Prosthodont Res; 2023 Oct 13; 67(4):531-538. PubMed ID: 36775339 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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 13; 25(7):929-36. PubMed ID: 19264353 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. Ender A, Mehl A. J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb 13; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. Revilla-León M, Att W, Özcan M, Rubenstein J. J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Mar 13; 125(3):470-478. PubMed ID: 32386912 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Three-dimensional analysis of marginal and internal fit of copings fabricated with polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) and zirconia. Bae SY, Park JY, Jeong ID, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC. J Prosthodont Res; 2017 Apr 13; 61(2):106-112. PubMed ID: 27484816 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Analysis of the relationship between the surface topography of prepared tooth surfaces and data quality of digital impressions from an intraoral scanner. Asar NV, Yun S, Schwartz S, Turkyilmaz I. J Dent Sci; 2022 Jan 13; 17(1):545-550. PubMed ID: 35028082 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans based on confocal microscopy versus optical triangulation: A comparative in vitro study. Waldecker M, Rues S, Rammelsberg P, Bömicke W. J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Sep 13; 126(3):414-420. PubMed ID: 32950254 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]