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.
82 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1075972)
21. [Substitution of amalgam by composite material]. Daskalakes D Odontiatriki; 1974; 7(4):225-30. PubMed ID: 4535015 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. [Quality of amalgam and composite restorations: a literature review]. Kroeze HJ; Ruiken HM; Plasschaert AJ Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1986 Oct; 93(10):343-5. PubMed ID: 3468366 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. [Conservative treatment in the cervical area: Class V fillings. 3]. Toffenetti F; Agudio G; Cortellini P; Clauser C; Pini Prato GP Mondo Odontostomatol; 1986; 28(3):27-34. PubMed ID: 3464833 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Fracture resistance of teeth with Class 2 silver amalgam, posterior composite, and glass cermet restorations. Jagadish S; Yogesh BG Oper Dent; 1990; 15(2):42-7. PubMed ID: 2374743 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Evaluation of amalgam filling and inlay in the therapy of lesions of the hard tissue in posterior teeth]. Beetke E; Gatzer M; Ritter G Dtsch Stomatol (1990); 1990 Nov; 40(11):454-7. PubMed ID: 2133198 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. [Composite or amalgam? Not a black or white decision]. Roeters FJ; Opdam NJ; Burgersdijk RC Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1992 Oct; 99(10):371-4. PubMed ID: 11820006 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Time required for placement of composite versus amalgam restorations. Dilley DC; Vann WF; Oldenburg TR; Crisp RM ASDC J Dent Child; 1990; 57(3):177-83. PubMed ID: 2345211 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [Clinical and outcome evaluation of amalgam fillings]. Pilz ME Stomatol DDR; 1987 Feb; 37(2):134-40. PubMed ID: 3473781 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. [Mixed amalgam-composite restorations. A new conservative technique]. Goracci G; Maggiore C; Ferraro E Dent Cadmos; 1990 Oct; 58(15):54-8, 61-4, 67. PubMed ID: 2279598 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. The composite resin inlay as an alternative to amalgam. Martin FE N Z Dent J; 1991 Apr; 87(388):43-5. PubMed ID: 1896140 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. [Amalgam. VIII. Substitute for amalgam: the biocompatibility of composite restorations]. Schuurs AH; van Amerongen JP Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1993 Sep; 100(9):389-91. PubMed ID: 11822149 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The composite resin restoration: a literature review, Part III. What the future holds. Full CA; Hollander WR ASDC J Dent Child; 1993; 60(1):57-9. PubMed ID: 8432949 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Using flowable composite as a base for amalgam restorations. McArdle BF Dent Today; 2002 Mar; 21(3):46-9. PubMed ID: 11915218 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. [Filling material in view: composites and amalgam]. Kimmel K Quintessenz J; 1977 Nov; 7(11):23-5. PubMed ID: 284437 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Replacing amalgam with posterior composites? Smith DC Ont Dent; 1985 Jul; 62(7):21-4, 26. PubMed ID: 3865121 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. [New filling materials: the end of the amalgam era?]. Durner H Freie Zahnarzt; 1980 Jun; 24(6):65-6. PubMed ID: 6935156 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Clinical evaluation of composite and amalgam posterior restorations: one year results. Derkson GD; Richardson AS; Waldman R J Can Dent Assoc; 1982 Jan; 48(1):45-7. PubMed ID: 7034910 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]