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

576 related items for PubMed ID: 29576569

  • 1. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses.
    Takeuchi Y, Koizumi H, Furuchi M, Sato Y, Ohkubo C, Matsumura H.
    J Oral Sci; 2018; 60(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 29576569
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial.
    Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P.
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Mar; 20(2):291-300. PubMed ID: 26070435
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression.
    Su TS, Sun J.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Sep; 116(3):362-7. PubMed ID: 27061628
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems.
    Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R.
    J Prosthodont; 2017 Oct; 26(7):581-586. PubMed ID: 26855068
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization.
    Güth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C.
    Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Jun; 21(5):1445-1455. PubMed ID: 27406138
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review.
    Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, Takafuji K, Takahashi T, Yokota J, Oriso K, Kondo H.
    J Prosthodont Res; 2020 Apr; 64(2):109-113. PubMed ID: 31474576
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Tsirogiannis P, Reissmann DR, Heydecke G.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Sep; 116(3):328-335.e2. PubMed ID: 27061627
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners.
    Abdel-Azim T, Rogers K, Elathamna E, Zandinejad A, Metz M, Morton D.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Oct; 114(4):554-9. PubMed ID: 26100929
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Intraoral Digital Impressioning for Dental Implant Restorations Versus Traditional Implant Impression Techniques.
    Wilk BL.
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2015 Oct; 36(7):529-30, 532-3. PubMed ID: 26247446
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Aug; 116(2):184-190.e12. PubMed ID: 26946916
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Fit evaluation of cad/cam fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization in vivo: a systematic review.
    Arcuri L, Lorenzi C, Bianchi N, Marchetti E, Barlattani A.
    J Biol Regul Homeost Agents; 2019 Aug; 33(3 Suppl. 1):103-111. DENTAL SUPPLEMENT. PubMed ID: 31538456
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Comparison of an indirect impression scanning system and two direct intraoral scanning systems in vivo.
    Bosniac P, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B.
    Clin Oral Investig; 2019 May; 23(5):2421-2427. PubMed ID: 30298453
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Fit of zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Morsy N, El Kateb M, Azer A, Fathalla S.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jul; 130(1):28-34. PubMed ID: 34696907
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P.
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2018 Oct; 29 Suppl 16():374-392. PubMed ID: 30328182
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Marginal Accuracy of Lithium Disilicate Full-Coverage Single Crowns Made by Direct and Indirect Digital or Conventional Workflows: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Tabesh M, Nejatidanesh F, Savabi G, Davoudi A, Savabi O.
    J Prosthodont; 2022 Dec; 31(9):744-753. PubMed ID: 35344238
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 17. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners.
    Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, Savio G, Vigolo P, Monaco C, Stellini E.
    J Prosthodont Res; 2019 Oct; 63(4):396-403. PubMed ID: 31072730
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 20. Comparison of dimensional accuracy of conventionally and digitally manufactured intracoronal restorations.
    Eftekhar Ashtiani R, Nasiri Khanlar L, Mahshid M, Moshaverinia A.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Feb; 119(2):233-238. PubMed ID: 28578984
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 29.