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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10507203)

  • 1. Comparison of two measurement techniques for clinical wear.
    Peters MC; Delong R; Pintado MR; Pallesen U; Qvist V; Douglas WH
    J Dent; 1999 Sep; 27(7):479-85. PubMed ID: 10507203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Composite restoration wear analysis: conventional methods vs. three-dimensional laser digitizer.
    Perry R; Kugel G; Kunzelmann KH; Flessa HP; Estafan D
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2000 Oct; 131(10):1472-7. PubMed ID: 11042988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Longitudinal micromorphological 15-year results of posterior composite restorations using three-dimensional scanning electron microscopy.
    Dietz W; Montag R; Kraft U; Walther M; Sigusch BW; Gaengler P
    J Dent; 2014 Aug; 42(8):959-69. PubMed ID: 24814136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of pattern of failure of resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions with and without occlusal wear facets.
    Oginni AO; Adeleke AA
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):824-30. PubMed ID: 24746714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. In vivo evaluation of the surface of posterior resin composite restorations: a pilot study.
    Pesun IJ; Olson AK; Hodges JS; Anderson GC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):353-9. PubMed ID: 11005910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. In vitro wear rates of materials under different loads and varying pH.
    Shabanian M; Richards LC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2002 Jun; 87(6):650-6. PubMed ID: 12131888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Potential of restorative systems with simplified adhesives: quantitative analysis of wear and marginal adaptation in vitro.
    Göhring TN; Schönenberger KA; Lutz F
    Am J Dent; 2003 Aug; 16(4):275-82. PubMed ID: 14579884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Attrition at the enamel-restoration interface.
    Chowdhury MU; Kobayashi K; Uchiyama Y
    Asian J Aesthet Dent; 1995; 3():23-30. PubMed ID: 9063106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical wear rate of direct and indirect posterior composite resin restorations.
    Cetin AR; Unlu N
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2012 Jun; 32(3):e87-94. PubMed ID: 22408783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Proximal wear rates by tooth position of resin composite restorations.
    Wendt SL; Ziemiecki TL; Leinfelder KF
    J Dent; 1996; 24(1-2):33-9. PubMed ID: 8636490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Marginal integrity of large compomer Class II restorations with cervical margins in dentine.
    Dietrich T; Kraemer M; Lösche GM; Roulet J
    J Dent; 2000 Aug; 28(6):399-405. PubMed ID: 10856804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Clinical performance and wear resistance of two compomers in posterior occlusal restorations of permanent teeth: six-year follow-up.
    Lund RG; Sehn FP; Piva E; Detoni D; Moura FR; Cardoso PE; Demarco FF
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(2):118-23. PubMed ID: 17427819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite.
    Palaniappan S; Bharadwaj D; Mattar DL; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P
    Dent Mater; 2009 Nov; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of the wear resistance of new nanocomposite resin restorative materials.
    Yesil ZD; Alapati S; Johnston W; Seghi RR
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Jun; 99(6):435-43. PubMed ID: 18514665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Three-year follow-up of five posterior composites: SEM study of differential wear.
    Willems G; Lambrechts P; Lesaffre E; Braem M; Vanherle G
    J Dent; 1993 Apr; 21(2):79-86. PubMed ID: 8473596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Studies on posterior composite resins with special reference to class II restorations.
    Lundin SA
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1990; 73():1-41. PubMed ID: 2264013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: clinical and microscopic results after 2 years.
    Krämer N; Reinelt C; García-Godoy F; Taschner M; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2009 Aug; 22(4):228-34. PubMed ID: 19824560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins.
    Mandikos MN; McGivney GP; Davis E; Bush PJ; Carter JM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Apr; 85(4):386-95. PubMed ID: 11319537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effect of thickness of flowable resins on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations.
    Malmström HS; Schlueter M; Roach T; Moss ME
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):373-80. PubMed ID: 12120775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. In vitro study of enamel and dentin marginal integrity of composite and compomer restorations placed in primary teeth after diamond or Er:YAG laser cavity preparation.
    Stiesch-Scholz M; Hannig M
    J Adhes Dent; 2000; 2(3):213-22. PubMed ID: 11317395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.