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 *

218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10850266)

  • 21. Posterior amalgam restorations--usage, regulation, and longevity.
    Mitchell RJ; Koike M; Okabe T
    Dent Clin North Am; 2007 Jul; 51(3):573-89, v. PubMed ID: 17586144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.
    van Dijken JW
    J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20193727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Fluoride-releasing resin bonding of amalgam restorations in primary teeth: in vitro secondary caries effect.
    Hicks J; Milano M; Seybold S; García-Godoy F; Flaitz C
    Am J Dent; 2002 Dec; 15(6):361-4. PubMed ID: 12691270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Handling characteristics of resin composites in posterior teeth.
    Ferrari M; Kugel G
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 1998 Sep; 19(9):879-82, 884, 886 passim; quiz 894. PubMed ID: 9852801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Selection of dental materials and longevity of replaced restorations in Public Dental Health clinics in northern Sweden.
    Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K; van Dijken JW; Funegård U; Lindberg A; Nilsson M
    J Dent; 2009 Sep; 37(9):673-8. PubMed ID: 19477572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The longevity of resin-based composite restorations in posterior teeth.
    Hondrum SO
    Gen Dent; 2000; 48(4):398-404. PubMed ID: 11199613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Effect of 4-META adhesive on bond strength and marginal seal of amalgam restorations and repairs--an in vitro study.
    George S; Kuriakose S; Jayalatha NS
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 1996 Jun; 14(2):52-5. PubMed ID: 9522758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Longevity of conventional and bonded (sealed) amalgam restorations in a private general dental practice.
    Bonsor SJ; Chadwick RG
    Br Dent J; 2009 Jan; 206(2):E3; discussion 88-9. PubMed ID: 19148188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [The future of dental amalgam].
    Opdam NJ
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 2005 Oct; 112(10):373-5. PubMed ID: 16300323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Trends in material choice for posterior restorations in an Israeli dental school: composite resin versus amalgam.
    Ben-Gal G; Weiss EI
    J Dent Educ; 2011 Dec; 75(12):1590-5. PubMed ID: 22184598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Cariostatic and ultraconservative sealed restorations: six-year results.
    Mertz-Fairhurst EJ; Smith CD; Williams JE; Sherrer JD; Mackert JR; Richards EE; Schuster GS; O'Dell NL; Pierce KL; Kovarik RE
    Quintessence Int; 1992 Dec; 23(12):827-38. PubMed ID: 1305301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Optimizing form and function with the direct posterior composite resin: a case report.
    Hornbrook DS
    Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent; 1996 May; 8(4):405-11. PubMed ID: 9028301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Advanced adhesive restorations: the post-amalgam age.
    Lutz FU; Krejci I; Oddera M
    Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent; 1996 May; 8(4):385-94; quiz 398. PubMed ID: 9028299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Longevity of occlusally-stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth.
    Hickel R; Kaaden C; Paschos E; Buerkle V; García-Godoy F; Manhart J
    Am J Dent; 2005 Jun; 18(3):198-211. PubMed ID: 16158813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Clinical research on bonded amalgam restorations. Part 1: SEM study of in vivo bonded amalgam restorations.
    Staninec M; Marshall GW; Lowe A; Ruzickova T
    Gen Dent; 1997; 45(4):356-60, 362. PubMed ID: 9515442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Class II glass ionomer cermet tunnel, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations over 2 years.
    Wilkie R; Lidums A; Smales R
    Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):181-4. PubMed ID: 7803004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Re-intervention in glass ionomer restorations: what comes next?
    Burke FJ; Lucarotti PS
    J Dent; 2009 Jan; 37(1):39-43. PubMed ID: 18819740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Using a new condensable composite for posterior restorations.
    Poss SD
    Compend Contin Educ Dent Suppl; 1999; (23):S14-8. PubMed ID: 12089754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.