1 |
Mah J, Hatcher D: Current status and future needs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 6: 10-16, 2003.
DOI
|
2 |
White AJ, Fallis DW, Vandewalle KS: Analysis of intra-arch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137: e451-459, 2010.
|
3 |
Chandran DT, Jagger DC, Jagger RG, Barbour ME: Twoand three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination. Biomed Mater Eng 20: 243-249, 2010.
|
4 |
Christensen GJ: The state of fixed prosthodontics impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc 136: 343- 346, 2005.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
5 |
Christensen GJ: Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 140: 1301-1304, 2009.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
6 |
Bindl A, Mormann WH: Clinical and SEM evaluation of all-ceramic chair-side CAD/CAM generated partial crowns. Eur J Oral Sci 111: 163-169, 2003.
DOI
|
7 |
Nakamura T, Dei N, Kojima T, Wakabayashi K: Marginal and internal fit of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM allceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 16: 244-248, 2003.
|
8 |
Caputi S, Varvara G: Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 99: 274-281, 2008
DOI
|
9 |
Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B: Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 17: 1-6, 2012.
|
10 |
Ender A, Mehl A: Full arch scans conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14: 11-21, 2011.
|
11 |
Kim KB, Lee GT, Kim HY, Kim JH: The influence of different gypsum materials on the accuracy from complete arch digital impression. J Dent Hyg Sci 12: 617-623, 2012.
|
12 |
Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Int J Nurs Stud 47: 931-936, 2010.
DOI
|
13 |
Lin LI-K: A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45: 255-268, 1989.
DOI
|
14 |
Lim MY, Lim SH: Comparison of model analysis measurements among plaster model, laser scan digital model, and cone beam CT image. Korean J Orthod 39: 6-17, 2009.
DOI
|
15 |
Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P: Assessment of the accuracy of a three dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod 30: 219-223, 2003.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
16 |
Watanebe-Kanno GA, Abrao J, Miasiro J, Hiroshi Sanchez-Ayala A, Lagravere MO: Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile 3 digital models. Braz Oral Res 23: 288-295, 2009.
DOI
|
17 |
Keating AP, Knox J, Bibb R, Zhurov Al: A comparison of plaster, digital and reconstructed study model accuracy. J Orthod 35: 191-201, 2008.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
18 |
Kuroda T, Motohashi N, Tominaga R, Iwata R: Threedimensional dental cast analyzing system using laser scanning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 110: 365-369, 1996.
DOI
|
19 |
Lowey MN: The development of a new method of cephalometric and study cast measuration with a computer controlled, video image capture system. Part II: study cast mensuration. Br J Orthod 20: 315-331, 1993.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
20 |
Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR: The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computerbased digital models. Angle Orthod 74: 298-303, 2004.
|