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 *

222 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12413229)

  • 41. Fracture resistance of premolar teeth restored with different filling techniques.
    França FM; Worschech CC; Paulillo LA; Martins LR; Lovadino JR
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2005 Aug; 6(3):62-9. PubMed ID: 16127473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Effectiveness of a self-adhesive resin luting system on fracture resistance of teeth restored with dentin-bonded crowns.
    Burke FJ; Fleming GJ; Abbas G; Richter B
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2006 Dec; 14(4):185-8. PubMed ID: 17205955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. In vitro study comparing fracture strength recovery of teeth restored with three esthetic bonding materials using different techniques.
    Rajput A; Ataide I; Lambor R; Monteiro J; Tar M; Wadhawan N
    Eur J Esthet Dent; 2010; 5(4):398-411. PubMed ID: 21069110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The influence of cavity preparation design on fracture strength and mode of fracture of laboratory-processed composite resin restorations.
    Fonseca RB; Fernandes-Neto AJ; Correr-Sobrinho L; Soares CJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Oct; 98(4):277-84. PubMed ID: 17936127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Fracture resistance of microhybrid composite, nano composite and fibre-reinforced composite used for incisal edge restoration.
    Badakar CM; Shashibhushan KK; Naik NS; Reddy VV
    Dent Traumatol; 2011 Jun; 27(3):225-9. PubMed ID: 21564519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with indirect composite resins: the effect of alternative luting procedures.
    Burke FJ; Wilson NH; Watts DC
    Quintessence Int; 1994 Apr; 25(4):269-75. PubMed ID: 8058900
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations.
    Qin M; Liu H
    Oper Dent; 2005; 30(5):580-7. PubMed ID: 16268391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Influence of post-etching cleaning and connecting porcelain on the microtensile bond strength of composite resin to feldspathic porcelain.
    Magne P; Cascione D
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Nov; 96(5):354-61. PubMed ID: 17098499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with direct and indirect adhesive techniques.
    Santos MJ; Bezerra RB
    J Can Dent Assoc; 2005 Sep; 71(8):585. PubMed ID: 16202199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Shear bond strength evaluation of adhesive and tooth preparation combinations used in reattachment of fractured teeth: an ex-vivo study.
    VamsiKrishna R; Madhusudhana K; Swaroopkumarreddy A; Lavanya A; Suneelkumar C; Kiranmayi G
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2015; 33(1):40-3. PubMed ID: 25572372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Bonding to worn or fractured incisal edges: shear bond strength of new adhesive systems.
    Goracci C; Bertelli E; Ferrari M
    Quintessence Int; 2004 Jan; 35(1):21-7. PubMed ID: 14765637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Effect of an adhesive resin luting agent on the dowel-head retention of three different core materials.
    Aksoy G; Cotert HS; Korkut L
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 May; 93(5):439-45. PubMed ID: 15867753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. In vitro comparison of cuspal fracture resistances of posterior teeth restored with various adhesive restorations.
    Cötert HS; Sen BH; Balkan M
    Int J Prosthodont; 2001; 14(4):374-8. PubMed ID: 11508095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Fracture strength of cusp replacing resin composite restorations.
    Kuijs RH; Fennis WM; Kreulen CM; Roeters JJ; Burgersdijk RC
    Am J Dent; 2003 Feb; 16(1):13-6. PubMed ID: 12744406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Fracture strength of restored premolars.
    Camacho GB; Gonçalves M; Nonaka T; Osório AB
    Am J Dent; 2007 Apr; 20(2):121-4. PubMed ID: 17542207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Evaluation of the effect of different ferrule designs on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors incorporating fiber posts, composite cores and crown restorations.
    Dikbas I; Tanalp J; Ozel E; Koksal T; Ersoy M
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2007 Nov; 8(7):62-9. PubMed ID: 17994156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. An ex vivo study of the effects of retained coronal dentine on the strength of teeth restored with composite core and different post and core systems.
    Al-Omiri MK; Al-Wahadni AM
    Int Endod J; 2006 Nov; 39(11):890-9. PubMed ID: 17014528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The effect of dentin adhesive and cure mode on film thickness and microtensile bond strength to dentin in indirect restorations.
    Coelho Santos MJ; Navarro MF; Tam L; McComb D
    Oper Dent; 2005; 30(1):50-7. PubMed ID: 15765957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Dentin bond strengths of two ceramic inlay systems after cementation with three different techniques and one bonding system.
    Ozturk N; Aykent F
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Mar; 89(3):275-81. PubMed ID: 12644803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts.
    Newman MP; Yaman P; Dennison J; Rafter M; Billy E
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Apr; 89(4):360-7. PubMed ID: 12690348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.