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 *

193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10559724)

  • 1. Clinical performance of pressed ceramic inlays luted with resin-modified glass ionomer and autopolymerizing resin composite cements.
    van Dijken JW; Ormin A; Olofsson AL
    J Prosthet Dent; 1999 Nov; 82(5):529-35. PubMed ID: 10559724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement and self-cured resin composite luted ceramic inlays. A 5-year clinical evaluation.
    van Dijken JW
    Dent Mater; 2003 Nov; 19(7):670-4. PubMed ID: 12901993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A 10-year prospective evaluation of CAD/CAM-manufactured (Cerec) ceramic inlays cemented with a chemically cured or dual-cured resin composite.
    Sjögren G; Molin M; van Dijken JW
    Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(2):241-6. PubMed ID: 15119879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Fired ceramic inlays: a 6-year follow up.
    van Dijken JW; Höglund-Aberg C; Olofsson AL
    J Dent; 1998 Mar; 26(3):219-25. PubMed ID: 9594473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Four-year clinical performance and marginal analysis of pressed glass ceramic inlays luted with ormocer restorative vs. conventional luting composite.
    Krämer N; Reinelt C; Richter G; Frankenberger R
    J Dent; 2009 Nov; 37(11):813-9. PubMed ID: 19744761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Resin-modified glass ionomers for luting posterior ceramic restorations.
    Thonemann B; Federlin M; Schmalz G; Hiller KA
    Dent Mater; 1995 May; 11(3):161-8. PubMed ID: 8600007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Three-year comparison of fired ceramic inlays cemented with composite resin or glass ionomer cement.
    Aberg CH; van Dijken JW; Olofsson AL
    Acta Odontol Scand; 1994 Jun; 52(3):140-9. PubMed ID: 8091960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Marginal breakdown of fired ceramic inlays cemented with glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement or resin composite.
    van Dijken JW; Hörstedt P
    J Dent; 1994 Oct; 22(5):265-72. PubMed ID: 7962904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A clinical evaluation of adhesively luted ceramic inlays. A two year follow-up study.
    Höglund C; van Dijken J; Olofsson AL
    Swed Dent J; 1992; 16(4):169-71. PubMed ID: 1455328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A 5-year clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays (Cerec) cemented with a dual-cured or chemically cured resin composite luting agent.
    Sjögren G; Molin M; van Dijken JW
    Acta Odontol Scand; 1998 Oct; 56(5):263-7. PubMed ID: 9860093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Three-year clinical evaluation of composite and ceramic inlays.
    Manhart J; Chen HY; Neuerer P; Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A; Hickel R
    Am J Dent; 2001 Apr; 14(2):95-9. PubMed ID: 11507807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays bonded with different luting agents.
    Gemalmaz D; Ozcan M; Alkumru HN
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(3):273-83. PubMed ID: 11803715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years.
    Frankenberger R; Taschner M; Garcia-Godoy F; Petschelt A; Krämer N
    J Adhes Dent; 2008 Oct; 10(5):393-8. PubMed ID: 19058686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of indirect composite inlays cemented with four luting agents.
    Gerdolle DA; Mortier E; Loos-Ayav C; Jacquot B; Panighi MM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Jun; 93(6):563-70. PubMed ID: 15942618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Microleakage of ceramic inlays luted with different resin cements and dentin adhesives.
    Uludag B; Ozturk O; Ozturk AN
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Oct; 102(4):235-41. PubMed ID: 19782826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength and adhesion of composite resin versus ceramic inlays in molars.
    Dejak B; Mlotkowski A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):131-40. PubMed ID: 18262014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Influence of cement type on the marginal adaptation of all-ceramic MOD inlays.
    Rosentritt M; Behr M; Lang R; Handel G
    Dent Mater; 2004 Jun; 20(5):463-9. PubMed ID: 15081553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Luting of ceramic inlays in vitro: marginal quality of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives versus self-etch cements.
    Frankenberger R; Lohbauer U; Schaible RB; Nikolaenko SA; Naumann M
    Dent Mater; 2008 Feb; 24(2):185-91. PubMed ID: 17544101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. In vitro push-out strength of seven luting agents to dentin.
    Cheylan JM; Gonthier S; Degrange M
    Int J Prosthodont; 2002; 15(4):365-70. PubMed ID: 12170851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays luted with self-adhesive resin cement: a 2-year in vivo study.
    Taschner M; Krämer N; Lohbauer U; Pelka M; Breschi L; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
    Dent Mater; 2012 May; 28(5):535-40. PubMed ID: 22236770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.