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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12483789)

  • 61. Alternatives to silver amalgam and resin composite in pediatric dentistry.
    Croll TP
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Nov; 29(11):697-703. PubMed ID: 10200719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial.
    Soncini JA; Maserejian NN; Trachtenberg F; Tavares M; Hayes C
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 Jun; 138(6):763-72. PubMed ID: 17545265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Enamel remineralization on teeth adjacent to Class II glass ionomer restorations.
    Segura A; Donly KJ; Stratmann RG
    Am J Dent; 1997 Oct; 10(5):247-50. PubMed ID: 9522700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. 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]  

  • 65. Esthetic restorative options for pulpotomized primary molars: a review of literature.
    Guelmann M; Shapira J; Silva DR; Fuks AB
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2011; 36(2):123-6. PubMed ID: 22524071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Restoration materials for primary molars-results from a European survey.
    Buerkle V; Kuehnisch J; Guelmann M; Hickel R
    J Dent; 2005 Apr; 33(4):275-81. PubMed ID: 15781135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results.
    Daou MH; Tavernier B; Meyer JM
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 2008; 118(4):290-5. PubMed ID: 18491670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Parental attitudes on restorative materials as factors influencing current use in pediatric dentistry.
    Zimmerman JA; Feigal RJ; Till MJ; Hodges JS
    Pediatr Dent; 2009; 31(1):63-70. PubMed ID: 19320262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and a compomer in restoring non-carious cervical lesions. 5-year results.
    Folwaczny M; Mehl A; Kunzelmann KH; Hickel R
    Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):153-6. PubMed ID: 11572293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars.
    Fuks AB; Araujo FB; Osorio LB; Hadani PE; Pinto AS
    Pediatr Dent; 2000; 22(6):479-85. PubMed ID: 11132507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations in primary teeth. A retrospective evaluation.
    Croll TP; Bar-Zion Y; Segura A; Donly KJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2001 Aug; 132(8):1110-6. PubMed ID: 11575018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. The effect of dental restoration type and material on periodontal health.
    Ababnaeh KT; Al-Omari M; Alawneh TN
    Oral Health Prev Dent; 2011; 9(4):395-403. PubMed ID: 22238739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Placement and replacement of restorations by selected practitioners.
    Tyas MJ
    Aust Dent J; 2005 Jun; 50(2):81-9; quiz 127. PubMed ID: 16050086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. An audit on the placement and replacement of restorations in a general dental practice.
    Frost PM
    Prim Dent Care; 2002 Jan; 9(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 11901789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. [Amalgam, composite and compomer: microbiological study].
    Zogheib CM; Hardan L; Khoury CK; Naaman NB
    Odontostomatol Trop; 2012 Mar; 35(137):44-50. PubMed ID: 22715643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Clinical evaluation of compomer in primary teeth: 1-year results.
    Hse KM; Wei SH
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1997 Aug; 128(8):1088-96. PubMed ID: 9260418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Longevity of new hybrid restorative materials in class III cavities.
    van Dijken JW
    Eur J Oral Sci; 1999 Jun; 107(3):215-9. PubMed ID: 10424386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Microleakage of compomer restorations in primary teeth after preparation with bur or air abrasion.
    Aysegül O; Nurhan O; Haluk B; Dilek T
    Oper Dent; 2005; 30(2):164-9. PubMed ID: 15853100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Fracture resistance of Class II approximal slot restorations.
    Yaman SD; Yetmez M; Türköz E; Akkas N
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):297-302. PubMed ID: 11005902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Microleakage of Class V compomer and light-cured glass ionomer restorations.
    Brackett WW; Gunnin TD; Gilpatrick RO; Browning WD
    J Prosthet Dent; 1998 Mar; 79(3):261-3. PubMed ID: 9553876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.