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 *

344 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11005910)

  • 1. In vivo evaluation of the surface of posterior resin composite restorations: a pilot study.
    Pesun IJ; Olson AK; Hodges JS; Anderson GC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):353-9. PubMed ID: 11005910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report.
    Türkün LS; Aktener BO; Ateş M
    Quintessence Int; 2003 Jun; 34(6):418-26. PubMed ID: 12859086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Potential of restorative systems with simplified adhesives: quantitative analysis of wear and marginal adaptation in vitro.
    Göhring TN; Schönenberger KA; Lutz F
    Am J Dent; 2003 Aug; 16(4):275-82. PubMed ID: 14579884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite.
    Palaniappan S; Bharadwaj D; Mattar DL; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P
    Dent Mater; 2009 Nov; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. ER-YAG laser pretreatment effect on in vitro secondary caries formation around composite restorations.
    Ceballos L; Toledano M; Osorio R; García-Godoy F; Flaitz C; Hicks J
    Am J Dent; 2001 Feb; 14(1):46-9. PubMed ID: 11806480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of thickness of flowable resins on marginal leakage in class II composite restorations.
    Malmström HS; Schlueter M; Roach T; Moss ME
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):373-80. PubMed ID: 12120775
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations.
    Krämer N; García-Godoy F; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2005 Apr; 18(2):75-81. PubMed ID: 15973822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An in vitro study of microleakage of occlusal composite restorations polymerized by a conventional curing light and a PAC curing light.
    Stritikus J; Owens B
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2000; 24(3):221-7. PubMed ID: 11314147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams.
    Mair LH
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Aug; 29(8):483-90. PubMed ID: 9807127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Wear evaluation of porcelain opposing gold, composite resin, and enamel.
    Kadokawa A; Suzuki S; Tanaka T
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Oct; 96(4):258-65. PubMed ID: 17052470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Replacement of resin-based composite: evaluation of cavity design, cavity depth, and shade matching.
    Gordan VV; Mondragon E; Shen C
    Quintessence Int; 2002 Apr; 33(4):273-8. PubMed ID: 11989376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 6-year results.
    Busato AL; Loguercio AD; Reis A; Carrilho MR
    Am J Dent; 2001 Oct; 14(5):304-8. PubMed ID: 11803995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Kinetic cavity preparation effects on secondary caries formation around resin restorations: a polarized light microscopic in vitro evaluation.
    Hicks MJ; Parkins FM; Flaitz CM
    ASDC J Dent Child; 2001; 68(2):115-21, 80, 142. PubMed ID: 11475686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The influence of antagonistic surface roughness on the wear of human enamel and nanofilled composite resin artificial teeth.
    Ghazal M; Kern M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 May; 101(5):342-9. PubMed ID: 19410068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Occlusal margin defects around different types of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth.
    Bryant RW; Marzbani N; Hodge KV
    Oper Dent; 1992; 17(6):215-21. PubMed ID: 1303514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations.
    Wucher M; Grobler SR; Senekal PJ
    Am J Dent; 2002 Aug; 15(4):274-8. PubMed ID: 12572648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.