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 *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1068287)

  • 1. Scanning electron microscope study of the junction between restorations and gingival cavosurface margins.
    Saltzberg DS; Ceravolo FJ; Holstein F; Groom G; Gottsegen R
    J Prosthet Dent; 1976 Nov; 36(5):517-22. PubMed ID: 1068287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Marginal fracture of posterior composite resins.
    Fukushima M; Setcos JC; Phillips RW
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1988 Oct; 117(5):577-83. PubMed ID: 3066806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The influence of restorative materials on marginal gingiva.
    Willershausen B; Köttgen C; Ernst CP
    Eur J Med Res; 2001 Oct; 6(10):433-9. PubMed ID: 11698230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Repair of amalgam restorations with composite resin and bonded amalgam: a microleakage study.
    Popoff DA; Gonçalves FS; Magalhães CS; Moreira AN; Ferreira RC; Mjör IA
    Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(6):799-803. PubMed ID: 22484874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies.
    Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H
    J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations: comparison of microleakage and bond strength results.
    Neme AL; Evans DB; Maxson BB
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):512-9. PubMed ID: 11203864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Class II restorations with margins below the CEJ.
    Kanca J; Greitzer G
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2009; 21(3):193-201. PubMed ID: 19508264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Composite Replacement of Amalgam Restoration Versus Freshly Cut Dentin: An In Vitro Microleakage Comparison.
    Redwan H; Bardwell DN; Ali A; Finkelman M; Khayat S; Weber HP
    Oper Dent; 2016; 41(3):E73-82. PubMed ID: 26918923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Microleakage of Class V resin-modified glass ionomer and compomer restorations.
    Toledano M; Osorio E; Osorio R; García-Godoy F
    J Prosthet Dent; 1999 May; 81(5):610-5. PubMed ID: 10220667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Black or white--Which choice for the molars? Part 2. Which does one choose for the restoration of posterior teeth: amalgam or composite?].
    De Moor R; Delmé K
    Rev Belge Med Dent (1984); 2008; 63(4):135-46. PubMed ID: 19227687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An in vitro study on the secondary caries-prevention properties of three restorative materials.
    Lai GY; Zhu LK; Li MY; Wang J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Nov; 110(5):363-8. PubMed ID: 23998624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Microleakage and enamel finish.
    Khera SC; Chan KC
    J Prosthet Dent; 1978 Apr; 39(4):414-9. PubMed ID: 273692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Efficacy of two methods for restorative materials' removal in primary teeth.
    Bittar DG; Murakami C; Hesse D; Imparato JC; Mendes FM
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2011 Sep; 12(5):372-8. PubMed ID: 22269199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of elastic cavity wall and occlusal loading on microleakage and dentin bond strength.
    Pongprueksa P; Kuphasuk W; Senawongse P
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):466-75. PubMed ID: 17910223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Amalgam repair: quantitative evaluation of amalgam-resin and resin-tooth interfaces with different surface treatments.
    Cehreli SB; Arhun N; Celik C
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(3):337-44. PubMed ID: 20533635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. In vivo and in vitro evaluations of microleakage around Class I amalgam and composite restorations.
    Alptekin T; Ozer F; Unlu N; Cobanoglu N; Blatz MB
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(6):641-8. PubMed ID: 21180003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.