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 *

205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11878760)

  • 1. The effect of dental restorative materials on dental biofilm.
    Auschill TM; Arweiler NB; Brecx M; Reich E; Sculean A; Netuschil L
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2002 Feb; 110(1):48-53. PubMed ID: 11878760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of candida albicans biofilm formation on various dental restorative material surfaces.
    Beldüz N; Kamburoğlu A; Yılmaz Y; Tosun I; Beldüz M; Kara C
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2017 Mar; 20(3):355-360. PubMed ID: 28256492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. In situ effects of restorative materials on dental biofilm and enamel demineralisation.
    Sousa RP; Zanin IC; Lima JP; Vasconcelos SM; Melo MA; Beltrão HC; Rodrigues LK
    J Dent; 2009 Jan; 37(1):44-51. PubMed ID: 19026481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of antibacterial activity of glass-ionomer cement and amalgam in class two restorations by Streptococcus mutans count analysis at fixed intervals: an in vivo study.
    Tegginmani VS; Goel B; Uppin V; Horatti P; Kumar LS; Nainani A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2013 May; 14(3):381-6. PubMed ID: 24171977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature.
    Bollen CM; Lambrechts P; Quirynen M
    Dent Mater; 1997 Jul; 13(4):258-69. PubMed ID: 11696906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. In situ bacterial accumulation on dental restorative materials. CLSM/COMSTAT analysis.
    Padovani GC; Fùcio SB; Ambrosano GM; Correr-Sobrinho L; Puppin-Rontani RM
    Am J Dent; 2015 Feb; 28(1):3-8. PubMed ID: 25864234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effect of surface characteristic of different restorative materials containing glass ionomer on
    Kelten OS; Hepdeniz OK; Tuncer Y; Kankaya DA; Gurdal O
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2020 Jul; 23(7):957-964. PubMed ID: 32620725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Analyses of biofilms accumulated on dental restorative materials.
    de Fúcio SB; Puppin-Rontani RM; de Carvalho FG; Mattos-Graner Rde O; Correr-Sobrinho L; Garcia-Godoy F
    Am J Dent; 2009 Jun; 22(3):131-6. PubMed ID: 19650591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effect of cariogenic biofilm challenge on the surface hardness of direct restorative materials in situ.
    Barbosa RP; Pereira-Cenci T; Silva WM; Coelho-de-Souza FH; Demarco FF; Cenci MS
    J Dent; 2012 May; 40(5):359-63. PubMed ID: 22326721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Influence of different adhesive restorative materials on mutans streptococci colonization.
    Brambilla E; Cagetti MG; Gagliani M; Fadini L; García-Godoy F; Strohmenger L
    Am J Dent; 2005 Jun; 18(3):173-6. PubMed ID: 16158808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Biofilm formation and release of fluoride from dental restorative materials in relation to their surface properties.
    Hahnel S; Ionescu AC; Cazzaniga G; Ottobelli M; Brambilla E
    J Dent; 2017 May; 60():14-24. PubMed ID: 28212980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Transmission electron microscopy of early plaque formation on dental materials in vivo.
    Hannig M
    Eur J Oral Sci; 1999 Feb; 107(1):55-64. PubMed ID: 10102751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Suitability of a shear punch test for dental restorative materials.
    Nomoto R; Carrick TE; McCabe JF
    Dent Mater; 2001 Sep; 17(5):415-21. PubMed ID: 11445209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents.
    Peutzfeldt A; Sahafi A; Flury S
    Oper Dent; 2011; 36(3):266-73. PubMed ID: 21740244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Influence of different resin-based restorative materials on mutans streptococci adhesion. An in vitro study.
    Osorio E; Osorio R; Toledano M; Quevedo-Sarmiento J; Ruiz-Bravo A
    Am J Dent; 2010 Oct; 23(5):275-8. PubMed ID: 21207795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Marginal adaptation to enamel of a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in vivo.
    van Dijken JW; Hörstedt P
    Clin Oral Investig; 1997 Dec; 1(4):185-90. PubMed ID: 9555215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Restorative pulpal and repair responses.
    Murray PE; About I; Franquin JC; Remusat M; Smith AJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2001 Apr; 132(4):482-91. PubMed ID: 11315379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Antimicrobial properties of glass-ionomer cements and other restorative materials.
    Scherer W; Lippman N; Kaim J
    Oper Dent; 1989; 14(2):77-81. PubMed ID: 2628947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reasons for restorative therapy and the longevity of restorations in adults.
    Forss H; Widström E
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2004 Apr; 62(2):82-6. PubMed ID: 15198387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The future of dental amalgam: a review of the literature. Part 7: Possible alternative materials to amalgam for the restoration of posterior teeth.
    Eley BM
    Br Dent J; 1997 Jul; 183(1):11-4. PubMed ID: 9254957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.