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.
4. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. Ender A, Mehl A. J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-8. PubMed ID: 23395338 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Deviations in palatal region between indirect and direct digital models: an in vivo study. Zhongpeng Y, Tianmin X, Ruoping J. BMC Oral Health; 2019 Apr 27; 19(1):66. PubMed ID: 31029133 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Smile design and advanced provisional fabrication. Malone M. Gen Dent; 2008 May 27; 56(3):238-42. PubMed ID: 19288831 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Accuracy of computer-aided design trial restorations fabricated with different digital workflows. Taha D, Allam S, Morsi T. J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Sep 27; 132(3):578-585. PubMed ID: 37925250 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. A fully digital approach to replicate peri-implant soft tissue contours and emergence profile in the esthetic zone. Monaco C, Evangelisti E, Scotti R, Mignani G, Zucchelli G. Clin Oral Implants Res; 2016 Dec 27; 27(12):1511-1514. PubMed ID: 25907030 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Workflow description of additively manufactured clear silicone indexes for injected provisional restorations: A novel technique. Revilla-León M, Fountain J, Piedra Cascón W, Özcan M, Zandinejad A. J Esthet Restor Dent; 2019 May 27; 31(3):213-221. PubMed ID: 30829449 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of accuracy of photogrammetry with 3D scanning and conventional impression method for craniomaxillofacial defects using a software analysis. Beri A, Pisulkar SK, Bagde AD, Bansod A, Dahihandekar C, Paikrao B. Trials; 2022 Dec 27; 23(1):1048. PubMed ID: 36575547 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Digital cross-mounting: A new opportunity in prosthetic dentistry. Venezia P, Torsello F, D'Amato S, Cavalcanti R. Quintessence Int; 2017 Dec 27; 48(9):701-709. PubMed ID: 28849806 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch. Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2019 Dec 27; 34(2):366–380. PubMed ID: 30521661 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry I, Thomas GW, Qian F. J Prosthodont; 2014 Dec 27; 23(8):610-7. PubMed ID: 24995593 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Digital transfer of the subgingival contour and emergence profile of the provisional restoration to the final bone-anchored fixed restoration. Kurosaki Y, Mino T, Maekawa K, Izumi K, Kuboki T. J Prosthodont Res; 2019 Jan 27; 63(1):125-129. PubMed ID: 30455114 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Technical note on introducing a digital workflow for newborns with craniofacial anomalies based on intraoral scans - part I: 3D printed and milled palatal stimulation plate for trisomy 21. Xepapadeas AB, Weise C, Frank K, Spintzyk S, Poets CF, Wiechers C, Arand J, Koos B. BMC Oral Health; 2020 Jan 23; 20(1):20. PubMed ID: 31973720 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]