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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10529865)

  • 1. Fracture strength of adhesively restored pulpotomized primary molars.
    el-Kalla IH; García-Godoy F
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1999; 66(4):238-42, 228. PubMed ID: 10529865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Microleakage of restorative techniques for pulpotomized primary molars.
    Guelmann M; Bookmyer KL; Villalta P; García-Godoy F
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2004; 71(3):209-11. PubMed ID: 15871455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Fracture resistance of anterior teeth restored with a novel nonmetallic post.
    Abo El-Ela OA; Atta OA; El-Mowafy O
    J Can Dent Assoc; 2008 Jun; 74(5):441. PubMed ID: 18538068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. The effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations restored with composite.
    Belli S; Erdemir A; Ozcopur M; Eskitascioglu G
    Int Endod J; 2005 Feb; 38(2):73-80. PubMed ID: 15667628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The influence of a packable resin composite, conventional resin composite and amalgam on molar cuspal stiffness.
    Molinaro JD; Diefenderfer KE; Strother JM
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(5):516-24. PubMed ID: 12216572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect of restoration size on fracture resistance of bonded amalgam restorations.
    Lindemuth JS; Hagge MS; Broome JS
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(3):177-81. PubMed ID: 11203813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations: effect of thermal cycling.
    Helvatjoglou-Antoniades M; Theodoridou-Pahini S; Papadogiannis Y; Karezis A
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):316-23. PubMed ID: 11203837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Support of undermined occlusal enamel provided by restorative materials.
    Latino C; Troendle K; Summitt JB
    Quintessence Int; 2001 Apr; 32(4):287-91. PubMed ID: 12066648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Fracture resistance of complex amalgam restorations.
    Burgess JO; Alvarez A; Summitt JB
    Oper Dent; 1997; 22(3):128-32. PubMed ID: 9484151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Molar fracture resistance after adhesive restoration with ceramic inlays or resin-based composites.
    Bremer BD; Geurtsen W
    Am J Dent; 2001 Aug; 14(4):216-20. PubMed ID: 11699740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. In vitro comparison of cuspal fracture resistances of posterior teeth restored with various adhesive restorations.
    Cötert HS; Sen BH; Balkan M
    Int J Prosthodont; 2001; 14(4):374-8. PubMed ID: 11508095
    [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. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with the bonded amalgam technique.
    Dias de Souza GM; Pereira GD; Dias CT; Paulillo LA
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(5):511-5. PubMed ID: 11551017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cuspal reinforcement in endodontically treated molars.
    Uyehara MY; Davis RD; Overton JD
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(6):364-70. PubMed ID: 10823086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel crown vs amalga.
    Holan G; Fuks AB; Ketlz N
    Pediatr Dent; 2002; 24(3):212-6. PubMed ID: 12064493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.