Co-Authors
This is a "connection" page, showing publications co-authored by Anthony Mennito and Walter Renne.
Connection Strength
4.417
-
Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019 07; 31(4):369-377.
Score: 0.710
-
Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018 03; 30(2):113-118.
Score: 0.653
-
Evaluation of the Marginal Fit of CAD/CAM Crowns Fabricated Using Two Different Chairside CAD/CAM Systems on Preparations of Varying Quality. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015 Jul-Aug; 27(4):194-202.
Score: 0.545
-
Predicting marginal fit of CAD/CAM crowns based on the presence or absence of common preparation errors. J Prosthet Dent. 2012 Nov; 108(5):310-5.
Score: 0.452
-
A simplified technique for restoring interproximal root surface lesions. Oper Dent. 2012 Mar-Apr; 37(2):211-5.
Score: 0.430
-
Assessing the Antimicrobial Properties of Copper-Iodide Doped Adhesives in an In vitro Caries Model: A Pilot Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2022 Apr-Jun; 13(2):118-124.
Score: 0.220
-
The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020 Mar; 32(2):204-218.
Score: 0.182
-
Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Jan; 123(1):85-95.
Score: 0.177
-
A novel method for complex three-dimensional evaluation of intraoral scanner accuracy. Int J Comput Dent. 2019; 22(3):239-249.
Score: 0.173
-
A novel technique for reference point generation to aid in intraoral scan alignment. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2017 11 12; 29(6):391-395.
Score: 0.156
-
Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in?vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jul; 118(1):36-42.
Score: 0.151
-
Utilizing self-assessment software to evaluate student wax-ups in dental morphology. J Dent Educ. 2015 Jun; 79(6):697-704.
Score: 0.135
-
E4D compare software: an alternative to faculty grading in dental education. J Dent Educ. 2013 Feb; 77(2):168-75.
Score: 0.115
-
The effect of software updates on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners. Quintessence Int. 2021 Jun 09; 52(7):636-644.
Score: 0.051
-
Evaluation of the accuracy of multiple digital impression systems on a fully edentulous maxilla. Quintessence Int. 2021 May 07; 52(6):488-495.
Score: 0.051
-
Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Oct; 128(4):632-638.
Score: 0.051
-
Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method. BMC Oral Health. 2020 04 07; 20(1):97.
Score: 0.047
-
Effect of scan substrates on accuracy of 7 intraoral digital impression systems using human maxilla model. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2019 May; 22 Suppl 1:168-174.
Score: 0.044
-
Anatomic Customization of Root-Analog Dental Implants With Cone-Beam CT and CAD/CAM Fabrication: A Cadaver-Based Pilot Evaluation. J Oral Implantol. 2018 Feb; 44(1):15-26.
Score: 0.040
-
Dental students' opinions of preparation assessment with E4D compare software versus traditional methods. J Dent Educ. 2014 Oct; 78(10):1424-31.
Score: 0.032