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

185 related items for PubMed ID: 38368235

  • 1. Effect of a Novel 'Scan Body' on the In Vitro Scanning Accuracy of Full-Arch Implant Impressions.
    Zhang T, Yang B, Ge R, Zhang C, Zhang H, Wang Y.
    Int Dent J; 2024 Aug; 74(4):847-854. PubMed ID: 38368235
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry.
    Cheng J, Zhang H, Liu H, Li J, Wang HL, Tao X.
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2024 May; 35(5):560-572. PubMed ID: 38421115
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 5. Accuracy of digital complete-arch, multi-implant scans made in the edentulous jaw with gingival movement simulation: An in vitro study.
    Knechtle N, Wiedemeier D, Mehl A, Ender A.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep; 128(3):468-478. PubMed ID: 33612335
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 9. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques.
    Lyu M, Di P, Lin Y, Jiang X.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Nov; 128(5):1017-1023. PubMed ID: 33640093
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. [Accuracy of photogrammetry and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study].
    Sun YJ, Ma BW, Yue XX, Lin X, Geng W.
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2022 Feb 09; 57(2):168-172. PubMed ID: 35152653
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Impact of intraoral scanner, scanning strategy, and scanned arch on the scan accuracy of edentulous arches: An in vitro study.
    Jamjoom FZ, Aldghim A, Aldibasi O, Yilmaz B.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Jun 09; 131(6):1218-1225. PubMed ID: 36841708
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.
    Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P.
    Clin Oral Implants Res; 2017 Nov 09; 28(11):1360-1367. PubMed ID: 28039903
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 19. Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial.
    Dohiem MM, Abdelaziz MS, Abdalla MF, Fawzy AM.
    BMC Oral Health; 2022 Nov 12; 22(1):486. PubMed ID: 36371189
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Accuracy of impression-making methods in edentulous arches: An in vitro study encompassing conventional and digital methods.
    Li J, Moon HS, Kim JH, Yoon HI, Oh KC.
    J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Sep 12; 128(3):479-486. PubMed ID: 33583617
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 10.