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.
146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11991463)
21. Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive agents with dye under vacuum: an in vitro study. Parolia A; Kundabala M; Gupta V; Verma M; Batra C; Shenoy R; Srikant N Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(2):252-5. PubMed ID: 21891895 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Two-year clinical evaluation of an amalgam adhesive. Belcher MA; Stewart GP J Am Dent Assoc; 1997 Mar; 128(3):309-14. PubMed ID: 9066215 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Bonding of amalgam restorations: existing knowledge and future prospects. Setcos JC; Staninec M; Wilson NH Oper Dent; 2000; 25(2):121-9. PubMed ID: 11203798 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Review of bonded amalgam restorations, and assessment in a general practice over five years. Smales RJ; Wetherell JD Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):374-81. PubMed ID: 11203845 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Longevity of extensive class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. van Dijken JW; Kieri C; Carlén M J Dent Res; 1999 Jul; 78(7):1319-25. PubMed ID: 10403459 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Minimal invasive treatment for defective restorations: five-year results using sealants. Martin J; Fernandez E; Estay J; Gordan VV; Mjor IA; Moncada G Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):125-33. PubMed ID: 22788726 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. Hickel R; Manhart J J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(1):45-64. PubMed ID: 11317384 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches. Mandari GJ; Frencken JE; van't Hof MA Caries Res; 2003; 37(4):246-53. PubMed ID: 12771499 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Effect of restoration size on fracture resistance of bonded amalgam restorations. Lindemuth JS; Hagge MS; Broome JS Oper Dent; 2000; 25(3):177-81. PubMed ID: 11203813 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination. Gordan VV; Blaser PK; Watson RE; Mjör IA; McEdward DL; Sensi LG; Riley JL J Am Dent Assoc; 2014 Oct; 145(10):1036-43. PubMed ID: 25270702 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Three restorative materials and topical fluoride gel used in xerostomic patients: a clinical comparison. Haveman CW; Summitt JB; Burgess JO; Carlson K J Am Dent Assoc; 2003 Feb; 134(2):177-84. PubMed ID: 12636121 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effect of pulp protection technique on the clinical performance of amalgam restorations: three-year results. Baratieri LN; Machado A; Van Noort R; Ritter AV; Baratieri NM Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):319-24. PubMed ID: 12120767 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Marginal failures of amalgam and composite restorations. Mjör IA; Qvist V J Dent; 1997 Jan; 25(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 9080736 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]