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 *

203 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12120714)

  • 1. Modified Class II open sandwich restorations: evaluation of interfacial adaptation and influence of different restorative techniques.
    Andersson-Wenckert IE; van Dijken JW; Hörstedt P
    Eur J Oral Sci; 2002 Jun; 110(3):270-5. PubMed ID: 12120714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Marginal adaptation of direct composite and sandwich restorations in Class II cavities with cervical margins in dentine.
    Dietrich T; Lösche AC; Lösche GM; Roulet JF
    J Dent; 1999 Feb; 27(2):119-28. PubMed ID: 10071469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Interfacial adaptation of a Class II polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite laminate restoration in vivo.
    Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Hörstedt P
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2000 Apr; 58(2):77-84. PubMed ID: 10894429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Marginal adaptation of composite restorations versus hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich restorations.
    Friedl KH; Schmalz G; Hiller KA; Mortazavi F
    Oper Dent; 1997; 22(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 9227124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Influence of different restorative techniques on marginal seal of class II composite restorations.
    Rodrigues Junior SA; Pin LF; Machado G; Della Bona A; Demarco FF
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2010; 18(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 20379680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Microleakage of light-cured resin and resin-modified glass-ionomer dentin bonding agents applied with co-cure vs pre-cure technique.
    Tulunoglu O; Uçtaşh M; Alaçam A; Omürlü H
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):292-8. PubMed ID: 11203833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Marginal adaptation of Class V restorations using different restorative techniques.
    Krejci I; Lutz F
    J Dent; 1991 Feb; 19(1):24-32. PubMed ID: 1901872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Influence of dentin conditioning and contamination on the marginal integrity of sandwich Class II restorations.
    Dietrich T; Kraemer M; Lösche GM; Wernecke KD; Roulet JF
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):401-10. PubMed ID: 11203848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. In vivo interfacial adaptation of class II resin composite restorations with and without a flowable resin composite liner.
    Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Hörstedt P
    Clin Oral Investig; 2005 Jun; 9(2):77-83. PubMed ID: 15815923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Directed polymerization shrinkage versus a horizontal incremental filling technique: interfacial adaptation in vivo in Class II cavities.
    van Dijken JW; Hörstedt P; Waern R
    Am J Dent; 1998 Aug; 11(4):165-72. PubMed ID: 10388370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. An in-vitro investigation of microleakage and gap size of glass ionomer/composite resin "sandwich" restorations in primary teeth.
    Reid JS; Saunders WP; Sharkey SW; Williams CE
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1994; 61(4):255-9. PubMed ID: 7989627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparative in vivo and in vitro investigation of interfacial bond variability.
    Hannig M; Friedrichs C
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 11203774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effect of additional enamel etching and a flowable composite to the interfacial integrity of Class II adhesive composite restorations.
    Belli S; Inokoshi S; Ozer F; Pereira PN; Ogata M; Tagami J
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(1):70-5. PubMed ID: 11203780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of eugenol-containing sealer on marginal adaptation of dentine-bonded resin fillings.
    Peters O; Göhring TN; Lutz F
    Int Endod J; 2000 Jan; 33(1):53-9. PubMed ID: 11307474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-and-rinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems.
    Kasraei S; Azarsina M; Majidi S
    Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):213-21. PubMed ID: 21702678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Effect of multi-step dentin bonding systems and resin-modified glass ionomer cement liner on marginal quality of dentin-bonded resin composite Class II restorations.
    Haller B; Trojanski A
    Clin Oral Investig; 1998 Sep; 2(3):130-6. PubMed ID: 9927914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Interfacial adaptation of in vivo aged polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) restorations in primary molars. A SEM evaluation.
    Andersson-Wenckert IE; van Dijken JW; Hörstedt P
    Clin Oral Investig; 1998 Dec; 2(4):184-90. PubMed ID: 10388392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of flowable composite liner and glass ionomer liner on class II gingival marginal adaptation of direct composite restorations with different bonding strategies.
    Aggarwal V; Singla M; Yadav S; Yadav H
    J Dent; 2014 May; 42(5):619-25. PubMed ID: 24631232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.