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 *

224 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10388373)

  • 1. Fracture strength of weakened human premolars restored with amalgam with and without cusp coverage.
    Mondelli RF; Barbosa WF; Mondelli J; Franco EB; Carvalho RM
    Am J Dent; 1998 Aug; 11(4):181-4. PubMed ID: 10388373
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode.
    Soares PV; Santos-Filho PC; Martins LR; Soares CJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Jan; 99(1):30-7. PubMed ID: 18182183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Fracture strength of cusp replacing resin composite restorations.
    Kuijs RH; Fennis WM; Kreulen CM; Roeters JJ; Burgersdijk RC
    Am J Dent; 2003 Feb; 16(1):13-6. PubMed ID: 12744406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic inlays.
    Hannig C; Westphal C; Becker K; Attin T
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Oct; 94(4):342-9. PubMed ID: 16198171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Influence of bonded amalgam restorations on the fracture strength of teeth.
    Oliveira JP; Cochran MA; Moore BK
    Oper Dent; 1996; 21(3):110-5. PubMed ID: 9002870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of bonding amalgam on the reinforcement of teeth.
    Rasheed AA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Jan; 93(1):51-5. PubMed ID: 15623998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials.
    Dalpino PH; Francischone CE; Ishikiriama A; Franco EB
    Am J Dent; 2002 Dec; 15(6):389-94. PubMed ID: 12691276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Fracture resistance of weakened teeth restored with condensable resin with and without cusp coverage.
    Mondelli RF; Ishikiriama SK; de Oliveira Filho O; Mondelli J
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2009; 17(3):161-5. PubMed ID: 19466244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Fracture strength and fracture patterns of maxillary premolars with approximal slot cavities.
    el-Mowafy OM
    Oper Dent; 1993; 18(4):160-6. PubMed ID: 8152985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Influence of endodontic treatment, post insertion, and ceramic restoration on the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars.
    Bitter K; Meyer-Lueckel H; Fotiadis N; Blunck U; Neumann K; Kielbassa AM; Paris S
    Int Endod J; 2010 Jun; 43(6):469-77. PubMed ID: 20536574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Fracture resistance of teeth with Class II bonded amalgam and new tooth-colored restorations.
    Görücü J; Ozgünaltay G
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(5):501-7. PubMed ID: 14531594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Cuspal deflection of maxillary premolars restored with bonded amalgam.
    el-Badrawy WA
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(6):337-43. PubMed ID: 10823082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Influence of different transitional restorations on the fracture resistance of premolar teeth.
    Qualtrough AJ; Cawte SG; Wilson NH
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(3):267-72. PubMed ID: 11357569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of restoration method on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars.
    Yamada Y; Tsubota Y; Fukushima S
    Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(1):94-8. PubMed ID: 15008239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Fatigue resistance of teeth restored with cuspal-coverage composite restorations.
    Fennis WM; Kuijs RH; Kreulen CM; Verdonschot N; Creugers NH
    Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(3):313-7. PubMed ID: 15237878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with ormocer and packable composite.
    Hürmüzlü F; Kiremitçi A; Serper A; Altundaşar E; Siso SH
    J Endod; 2003 Dec; 29(12):838-40. PubMed ID: 14686819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of bonded restorations on the fracture resistance of root filled teeth.
    Sagsen B; Aslan B
    Int Endod J; 2006 Nov; 39(11):900-4. PubMed ID: 17014529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part II: strain measurement and stress distribution.
    Soares PV; Santos-Filho PC; Gomide HA; Araujo CA; Martins LR; Soares CJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):114-22. PubMed ID: 18262012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Fracture resistance of the buccal cusps of root filled maxillary premolar teeth restored with various techniques.
    Siso SH; Hürmüzlü F; Turgut M; Altundaşar E; Serper A; Er K
    Int Endod J; 2007 Mar; 40(3):161-8. PubMed ID: 17305692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The influence of cavity preparation design on fracture strength and mode of fracture of laboratory-processed composite resin restorations.
    Fonseca RB; Fernandes-Neto AJ; Correr-Sobrinho L; Soares CJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Oct; 98(4):277-84. PubMed ID: 17936127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.