336 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12636121)
1. 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]
2. A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients.
McComb D; Erickson RL; Maxymiw WG; Wood RE
Oper Dent; 2002; 27(5):430-7. PubMed ID: 12216559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A clinical comparison of glass ionomer (polyalkenoate) and silver amalgam restorations in the treatment of Class 5 caries in xerostomic head and neck cancer patients.
Wood RE; Maxymiw WG; McComb D
Oper Dent; 1993; 18(3):94-102. PubMed ID: 8415169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations.
Donly KJ; Segura A; Kanellis M; Erickson RL
J Am Dent Assoc; 1999 Oct; 130(10):1459-66. PubMed ID: 10570589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An in vitro study on the secondary caries-prevention properties of three restorative materials.
Lai GY; Zhu LK; Li MY; Wang J
J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Nov; 110(5):363-8. PubMed ID: 23998624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Secondary caries formation in vitro around fluoride-releasing restorations.
Dionysopoulos P; Kotsanos N; Koliniotou-Koubia ; Papagodiannis Y
Oper Dent; 1994; 19(5):183-8. PubMed ID: 8700758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An in vitro comparison of three fluoride regimens on enamel remineralization.
Marinelli CB; Donly KJ; Wefel JS; Jakobsen JR; Denehy GE
Caries Res; 1997; 31(6):418-22. PubMed ID: 9353580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An in vitro investigation of marginal dentine caries abutting composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations.
Knight GM; McIntyre JM; Craig GG; Mulyani ; Zilm PS; Gully NJ
Aust Dent J; 2007 Sep; 52(3):187-92. PubMed ID: 17969286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients.
De Moor RJ; Stassen IG; van 't Veldt Y; Torbeyns D; Hommez GM
Clin Oral Investig; 2011 Feb; 15(1):31-8. PubMed ID: 19997859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Class II amalgam restorations, glass-ionomer tunnel restorations, and caries development on adjacent tooth surfaces: a 3-year clinical study.
Svanberg M
Caries Res; 1992; 26(4):315-8. PubMed ID: 1423449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Fluoride release and caries inhibition associated with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement at varying fluoride loading doses.
Donly KJ; Segura A
Am J Dent; 2002 Feb; 15(1):8-10. PubMed ID: 12074234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Lack of effect of fluoride releasing resin modified glass ionomer restorations on the contacting surface of adjacent primary molars. a clinical prospective study.
Kotsanos N; Dionysopoulos P
Eur J Paediatr Dent; 2004 Sep; 5(3):136-42. PubMed ID: 15471520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Eight-year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth.
Qvist V; Laurberg L; Poulsen A; Teglers PT
Acta Odontol Scand; 2004 Feb; 62(1):37-45. PubMed ID: 15124781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Demineralization inhibition at glass-ionomer cement and amalgam restoration margins in conjunction with additional fluoride regimens.
Donly KJ; Kerber L
Spec Care Dentist; 1999; 19(1):24-8. PubMed ID: 10483457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. In vitro inhibition of marginal caries-like lesions with fluoride-containing amalgam.
Valenzuela VS; Abarca AM; Silva ND; Franco ME; Huerta JM
Oper Dent; 1994; 19(3):91-6. PubMed ID: 9028246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Preventive dentistry 5. Secondary caries].
Hollanders ACC; Kuper NK; Opdam NJM; Huysmans MCDNJM
Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 2017 May; 124(5):257-263. PubMed ID: 28501880
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth: three-year results.
Qvist V; Laurberg L; Poulsen A; Teglers PT
J Dent Res; 1997 Jul; 76(7):1387-96. PubMed ID: 9207772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. In vitro caries inhibition effects by conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations.
Tam LE; Chan GP; Yim D
Oper Dent; 1997; 22(1):4-14. PubMed ID: 9227122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The effect of a resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material on artificially demineralised dentine caries in vitro.
Creanor SL; Awawdeh LA; Saunders WP; Foye RH; Gilmour WH
J Dent; 1998; 26(5-6):527-31. PubMed ID: 9699447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Artificial formed caries-like lesions around esthetic restorative materials.
Attar N; Onen A
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2002; 26(3):289-96. PubMed ID: 11990054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
