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 *

96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10850268)

  • 1. Indirect composite resin materials for posterior applications.
    Shellard E; Duke ES
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 1999 Dec; 20(12):1166-71. PubMed ID: 10850268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Stress distributions in adhesively cemented ceramic and resin-composite Class II inlay restorations: a 3D-FEA study.
    Ausiello P; Rengo S; Davidson CL; Watts DC
    Dent Mater; 2004 Nov; 20(9):862-72. PubMed ID: 15451242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. In vitro marginal leakage around Class II resin composite restorations with glass-ceramic inserts.
    Coli P; Derhami K; Brännström M
    Quintessence Int; 1997 Nov; 28(11):755-60. PubMed ID: 9573868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Fiber reinforced composite resin systems.
    Giordano R
    Gen Dent; 2000; 48(3):244-9. PubMed ID: 11199586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Posterior composite resin inlays and onlays: a comparison of available systems.
    Porter KH
    Tex Dent J; 1990 May; 107(5):9-11. PubMed ID: 2375001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Time required to remove totally bonded tooth-colored posterior restorations and related tooth substance loss.
    Krejci I; Lieber CM; Lutz F
    Dent Mater; 1995 Jan; 11(1):34-40. PubMed ID: 7498606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparison of microleakage between direct placement technics and direct inlay technics.
    Yanikoğlu F; Scherer W
    J Marmara Univ Dent Fac; 1990 Sep; 1(1):40-6. PubMed ID: 2129915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Marginal seal comparisons between resin-bonded Class II porcelain inlays, posterior composite restorations, and direct composite resin inlays.
    Shortall AC; Baylis RL; Baylis MA; Grundy JR
    Int J Prosthodont; 1989; 2(3):217-23. PubMed ID: 2699418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing cavities placed by dental students: results after 4 years.
    Huth KC; Chen HY; Mehl A; Hickel R; Manhart J
    J Dent; 2011 Jul; 39(7):478-88. PubMed ID: 21554920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.
    Manhart J; Neuerer P; Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A; Hickel R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):289-96. PubMed ID: 11005901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with indirect-composite and ceramic inlay systems.
    Soares CJ; Martins LR; Pfeifer JM; Giannini M
    Quintessence Int; 2004 Apr; 35(4):281-6. PubMed ID: 15119713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Interfacial gaps following ceramic inlay cementation vs direct composites.
    Iida K; Inokoshi S; Kurosaki N
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(4):445-52. PubMed ID: 12877431
    [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. Dentin bond strength and marginal adaptation: direct composite resins vs ceramic inlays.
    Frankenberger R; Sindel J; Krämer N; Petschelt A
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(3):147-55. PubMed ID: 10530276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars--a three year clinical evaluation.
    Ostlund J; Möller K; Koch G
    Swed Dent J; 1992; 16(3):81-6. PubMed ID: 1496459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Fracture resistance of resin-based composite and ceramic inlays luted to sound human teeth.
    da Silva SB; Hilgert LA; Busato AL
    Am J Dent; 2004 Dec; 17(6):404-6. PubMed ID: 15724750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Wear resistance of resin cements.
    Suzuki S; Leinfelder KF; Shinkai K
    Am J Dent; 1995 Apr; 8(2):83-7. PubMed ID: 7546484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.