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

109 related items for PubMed ID: 26438993

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. 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]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Digitization of dental alginate impression: Three-dimensional evaluation of point cloud.
    Kim SR, Lee WS, Kim WC, Kim HY, Kim JH.
    Dent Mater J; 2015 Sep; 34(6):835-40. PubMed ID: 26632232
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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; 25(7):929-36. PubMed ID: 19264353
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Three-dimensional accuracy of implant and abutment level impression techniques: effect on marginal discrepancy.
    Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Monzavi A, Momen-Heravi F.
    J Oral Implantol; 2011 Dec; 37(6):649-57. PubMed ID: 20594060
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. White light scanner-based repeatability of 3-dimensional digitizing of silicon rubber abutment teeth impressions.
    Jeon JH, Lee KT, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC.
    J Adv Prosthodont; 2013 Nov; 5(4):452-6. PubMed ID: 24353885
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Effect of impression holding time and tray removal speed on the dimensional accuracy of impressions for artificial abutment tooth inclined.
    Hirota Y, Tawada Y, Komatsu S, Watanabe F.
    Odontology; 2021 Jan; 109(1):157-167. PubMed ID: 32691180
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.
    Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC.
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2013 Sep; 144(3):471-8. PubMed ID: 23992820
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Effects of impression levels and trays on the accuracy of impressions taken from angulated implants.
    Geramipanah F, Sahebi M, Davari M, Hajimahmoudi M, Rakhshan V.
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2015 Sep; 26(9):1098-105. PubMed ID: 24934081
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 6.