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.
43. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study. Kavvadia K; Kakaboura A; Vanderas AP; Papagiannoulis L Pediatr Dent; 2004; 26(3):245-50. PubMed ID: 15185806 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Penetration of amalgam constituents into dentine. Scholtanus JD; Ozcan M; Huysmans MC J Dent; 2009 May; 37(5):366-73. PubMed ID: 19231059 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional restorative procedures in a hospital clinic: evaluation after 30 months. Gao W; Peng D; Smales RJ; Yip KH Quintessence Int; 2003 Jan; 34(1):31-7. PubMed ID: 12674356 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. [Comparative in vivo wear-resistance measurements between amalgam and composite materials. Results after 2 years]. Meier C; Lutz F Dtsch Zahnarztl Z; 1980 Apr; 35(4):489-92. PubMed ID: 6931810 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Corrosion potential recovery of dental amalgam restorations following prophylaxis. Sutow EJ; Maillet JP; Maillet WA; Hall GC; Millar M Dent Mater; 2007 Jul; 23(7):840-3. PubMed ID: 16934322 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Survival time of Class II molar restorations in relation to patient and dental health insurance costs for treatment. Sjögren P; Halling A Swed Dent J; 2002; 26(2):59-66. PubMed ID: 12462873 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. [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]
52. Evaluation of proximal contacts of posterior composite restorations with 4 placement techniques. El-Badrawy WA; Leung BW; El-Mowafy O; Rubo JH; Rubo MH J Can Dent Assoc; 2003 Mar; 69(3):162-7. PubMed ID: 12622881 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. 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]
54. In vivo galvanic currents of intermittently contacting dental amalgam and other metallic restorations. Sutow EJ; Maillet WA; Taylor JC; Hall GC Dent Mater; 2004 Nov; 20(9):823-31. PubMed ID: 15451237 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. [The abrasion of composites in the region of the lateral teeth--results after 3 years]. Roulet JF; Mettler P; Friedrich U Dtsch Zahnarztl Z; 1980 Apr; 35(4):493-7. PubMed ID: 6997011 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. 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]
58. 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]
59. 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]