3D Digital Impression Systems Compared with Traditional Techniques in Dentistry: A Recent Data Systematic Review
暂无分享,去创建一个
Gabriele Cervino | Luca Fiorillo | Alan Scott Herford | Luigi Laino | Salvatore Crimi | Cesare D'Amico | Marco Cicciù | Dario Gambino | Emanuele Mario Amantia | Paola Campagna | Alberto Bianchi | L. Fiorillo | M. Cicciu' | S. Crimi | L. Laino | G. Cervino | A. Bianchi | A. Herford | Dario Gambino | P. Campagna | C. D’Amico
[1] Gabriele Cervino,et al. Impression materials: does water affect the performance of alginates? , 2020, Minerva stomatologica.
[2] F. Mangano,et al. An Experimental Strategy for Capturing the Margins of Prepared Single Teeth with an Intraoral Scanner: A Prospective Clinical Study on 30 Patients , 2020, International journal of environmental research and public health.
[3] S. Imazato,et al. Autoclave sterilization of dental handpieces: A literature review. , 2020, Journal of prosthodontic research.
[4] Hidemichi Kihara,et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. , 2020, Journal of prosthodontic research.
[5] Burak Yilmaz,et al. A digital intraoral implant scan technique using a combined healing abutment and scan body system. , 2020, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.
[6] Gabriele Cervino,et al. Reliability of a Virtual Prosthodontic Project Realized through a 2D and 3D Photographic Acquisition: An Experimental Study on the Accuracy of Different Digital Systems , 2019, International journal of environmental research and public health.
[7] Gabriele Cervino,et al. Comparison of Two Low-Profile Prosthetic Retention System Interfaces: Preliminary Data of an In Vitro Study , 2019 .
[8] Miguel Gómez-Polo,et al. Photogrammetric and intraoral digital impression technique for the rehabilitation of multiple unfavorably positioned dental implants - a clinical report. , 2019, The Journal of oral implantology.
[9] G. Risitano,et al. Prosthetic and Mechanical Parameters of the Facial Bone under the Load of Different Dental Implant Shapes: A Parametric Study , 2019, Prosthesis.
[10] Francesco Grande,et al. New Tricks in the Preparation Design for Prosthetic Ceramic Laminate Veeners , 2019, Prosthesis.
[11] F. Collares,et al. CAD/CAM or conventional ceramic materials restorations longevity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2019, Journal of prosthodontic research.
[12] João Caramês,et al. Total digital workflow in the fabrication of a partial removable dental prostheses: A case report , 2019, SAGE Open Medical Case Reports.
[13] Jan-Frederik Güth,et al. Digital impressions in dentistry—accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop scanners , 2019, Clinical Oral Investigations.
[14] Marco Cicciù,et al. Prosthesis: New Technological Opportunities and Innovative Biomedical Devices , 2019, Prosthesis.
[15] B. Sampaio-Maia,et al. A simple and effective method for addition silicone impression disinfection , 2019, The journal of advanced prosthodontics.
[16] Alessandro Ricci,et al. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Four Digital Methods by Linear and Volumetric Analysis of Dental Impressions , 2019, Materials.
[17] L. Fiorillo. Chlorhexidine Gel Use in the Oral District: A Systematic Review , 2019, Gels.
[18] Xiaobin Zhou,et al. The effects of the PRISMA statement to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for patients with heart failure. , 2019, International journal of nursing practice.
[19] G. Spagnuolo,et al. Dental Restorative Digital Workflow: Digital Smile Design from Aesthetic to Function , 2019, Dentistry journal.
[20] M. Walters,et al. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique for a Neonate With Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate , 2019, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.
[21] G. Sannino,et al. Conventional versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial , 2019, International journal of environmental research and public health.
[22] H. Pardo-Hernandez,et al. Quality of reporting and risk of bias of randomized clinical trials published in Spanish and Latin American journals. , 2019, Medwave.
[23] Vincent Fehmer,et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions. , 2019, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.
[24] A. Keepanasseril,et al. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Dentistry: A Systematic Review , 2019, Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research.
[25] Gabriele Cervino,et al. Alginate Materials and Dental Impression Technique: A Current State of the Art and Application to Dental Practice , 2018, Marine drugs.
[26] V. Cave,et al. Digital and conventional impressions have similar working times , 2018, Evidence-Based Dentistry.
[27] T. Okuda,et al. Effect of ozonated water on the surface roughness of dental stone casts. , 2018, Dental materials journal.
[28] Aalok Mishra,et al. Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Mixing Techniques and Disinfection on Microbial Colonization of Polyether Impression Materials: A Comparative Study. , 2018, Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice.
[29] T. Joda,et al. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial , 2017, Clinical oral implants research.
[30] T. Joda,et al. Dental Students' Perceptions of Digital and Conventional Impression Techniques: A Randomized Controlled Trial. , 2017, Journal of dental education.
[31] Nawapat Sakornwimon,et al. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients’ preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.
[32] Vincent Fehmer,et al. Randomized controlled within‐subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part II: CAD‐CAM versus conventional laboratory procedures , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.
[33] Kazuyoshi Baba,et al. In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques , 2017, PloS one.
[34] A. Frigo,et al. Reproducibility of a Digital Method to Evaluate Soft Tissue Modifications: A study of Inter and Intra-Operative Measurement Concordance , 2017, The open dentistry journal.
[35] Irena Sailer,et al. Randomized controlled within‐subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.
[36] U. Brägger,et al. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.
[37] Vincent Fehmer,et al. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.
[38] B. Chrcanovic,et al. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique Compared to Conventional Impression Technique. A Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2016, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.
[39] Enrico Gherlone,et al. Conventional Versus Digital Impressions for "All-on-Four" Restorations. , 2016, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.
[40] T. Attin,et al. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.
[41] Rachel Churchill,et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[42] Lun Li,et al. The PRISMA Extension Statement , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[43] Jack L. Vevea,et al. Publication bias as a function of study characteristics. , 2015, Psychological methods.
[44] Kristian Thorlund,et al. The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[45] G. Matarese,et al. Valutazione dei sistemi di ingrandimento in odontoiatria conservativa e restaurativa. Studio in vitro , 2015 .
[46] Seok-Hwan Cho,et al. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. , 2015, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.
[47] B. Wöstmann,et al. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients , 2015, Clinical Oral Investigations.
[48] E. Yuzbasioglu,et al. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes , 2014, BMC oral health.
[49] Albert Mehl,et al. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. , 2013, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.
[50] J. Sterne,et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[51] J. Berg,et al. The dynamic interaction of water with four dental impression materials during cure. , 2009, Journal of Prosthodontics.
[52] M. Nobre,et al. The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search. , 2007, Revista latino-americana de enfermagem.