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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10323158)

  • 21. Effect of three direct restorative materials on molar cuspal fracture resistance.
    Allara FW; Diefenderfer KE; Molinaro JD
    Am J Dent; 2004 Aug; 17(4):228-32. PubMed ID: 15478480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Clinical evaluation of polyacid-modified resin composite posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Luo Y; Lo EC; Fang DT; Wei SH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Oct; 31(9):630-6. PubMed ID: 11203987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Photoelastic assessment of the expansion of direct-placement gallium restorative alloys.
    Osborne JW
    Quintessence Int; 1999 Mar; 30(3):185-91. PubMed ID: 10356572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a gallium restorative alloy.
    Kiremitci A; Bolay S
    J Oral Rehabil; 2003 Jun; 30(6):664-7. PubMed ID: 12787466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A randomized clinical trial of cusp-replacing resin composite restorations: efficiency and short-term effectiveness.
    Kuijs RH; Fennis WM; Kreulen CM; Roeters FJ; Creugers NH; Burgersdijk RC
    Int J Prosthodont; 2006; 19(4):349-54. PubMed ID: 16900817
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Gallium: an alternative for amalgam?].
    Schuurs AH; Davidson CL
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1997 Apr; 104(4):142-5. PubMed ID: 11924385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in small to moderate-sized Class II preparations of conventional design.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 May; 31(5):347-52. PubMed ID: 11203946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Gallium alloy restorations in primary teeth: a 12-month study.
    Kaga M; Nakajima H; Sakai T; Oguchi H
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1996 Aug; 127(8):1195-200. PubMed ID: 8803395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Bonded amalgam restorations: using a glass-ionomer as an adhesive liner.
    Chen RS; Liu CC; Cheng MR; Lin CP
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):411-7. PubMed ID: 11203849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Clinical evaluation of a resin composite and bonding agent in Class I and II restorations: 2-year results.
    Lundin SA; Rasmusson CG
    Quintessence Int; 2004 Oct; 35(9):758-62. PubMed ID: 15471000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Clinical application of a direct placement mercury-free alloy.
    Knight GT; Berry TG
    Am J Dent; 1997 Feb; 10(1):52-4. PubMed ID: 9545922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Short- and long-term clinical evaluation of post-operative sensitivity of a new resin-based restorative material and self-etching primer.
    Gordan VV; Mjör IA
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(6):543-8. PubMed ID: 12413217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Clinical and microbiological effects of different restorative materials on the periodontal tissues adjacent to subgingival class V restorations.
    Paolantonio M; D'ercole S; Perinetti G; Tripodi D; Catamo G; Serra E; Bruè C; Piccolomini R
    J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Mar; 31(3):200-7. PubMed ID: 15016024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2001 May; 32(5):391-5. PubMed ID: 11444073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A suggested method for mixing direct filling restorative gallium alloy.
    Momoi Y; Asami Y; Ozawa M; Kohno A
    Oper Dent; 1996; 21(1):12-6. PubMed ID: 8957910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Clinical effectiveness and soft tissue compatibility of a temporary restorative material.
    Fabiano JA; Sobieraj BD; Mather ML; Ciancio SG
    J Int Acad Periodontol; 2006 Jan; 8(1):6-9. PubMed ID: 16459883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Factors associated with postoperative sensitivity of amalgam restorations.
    Al-Omari QD; Al-Omari WM; Omar R
    J Ir Dent Assoc; 2009; 55(2):87-91. PubMed ID: 19455848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Marginal adaptation and micro-porosity of class II restorations of a high copper amalgam and a palladium-free gallium-based alloy.
    Shaini FJ; Wahab FK; Ellakwa AE; Shortall AC; Fleming GJ; Marquis PM
    J Oral Rehabil; 2006 Dec; 33(12):924-33. PubMed ID: 17168935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study.
    Kavvadia K; Kakaboura A; Vanderas AP; Papagiannoulis L
    Pediatr Dent; 2004; 26(3):245-50. PubMed ID: 15185806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results.
    Bottenberg P; Alaerts M; Keulemans F
    J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):163-71. PubMed ID: 16963171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.