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 *

215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1291301)

  • 1. Dental materials for posterior restorations.
    Rykke M
    Endod Dent Traumatol; 1992 Aug; 8(4):139-48. PubMed ID: 1291301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam.
    Roulet JF
    J Dent; 1997 Nov; 25(6):459-73. PubMed ID: 9604577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Despite all--do we have an appropriate substitute for amalgam?].
    Levin L; Samorodnitzky-Naveh G; Coval M; Geiger SB
    Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993); 2008 Apr; 25(2):23-6, 73. PubMed ID: 18780542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Conservative indirect restorations for posterior teeth. Cast versus bonded ceramic.
    Donovan TE; Chee WW
    Dent Clin North Am; 1993 Jul; 37(3):433-43. PubMed ID: 8348996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up.
    Scholtanus JD; Ozcan M
    J Dent; 2014 Nov; 42(11):1404-10. PubMed ID: 24994619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Longevity of posterior tooth dental restorations.
    Christensen GJ
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2005 Feb; 136(2):201-3. PubMed ID: 15782524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations.
    Sarrett DC
    Dent Mater; 2005 Jan; 21(1):9-20. PubMed ID: 15680997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Factors relating to usage patterns of amalgam and resin composite for posterior restorations--a prospective analysis.
    Khalaf ME; Alomari QD; Omar R
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):785-92. PubMed ID: 24769386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The future of dental amalgam: a review of the literature. Part 7: Possible alternative materials to amalgam for the restoration of posterior teeth.
    Eley BM
    Br Dent J; 1997 Jul; 183(1):11-4. PubMed ID: 9254957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Materials for conservative posterior restorations.
    Donovan TE; Cho GC
    J Calif Dent Assoc; 1996 Sep; 24(9):32-8. PubMed ID: 9120610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Complex single-tooth restorations.
    Trushkowsky RD; Burgess JO
    Dent Clin North Am; 2002 Apr; 46(2):341-65. PubMed ID: 12014037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Utilization of ceromer inlays/onlays for replacement of amalgam restorations.
    Koczarski MJ
    Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent; 1998 May; 10(4):405-12; quiz 414. PubMed ID: 9655047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Five-year study of Class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cerment and resin-based composite materials.
    Mjör IA; Jokstad A
    J Dent; 1993 Dec; 21(6):338-43. PubMed ID: 8258583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
    Lange RT; Pfeiffer P
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Modern alternatives to amalgam: cementable restorations and inlays.
    Wirz J; Jaeger K
    Quintessence Int; 1999 Aug; 30(8):551-6. PubMed ID: 10635268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up.
    van Dijken JW
    J Dent; 2000 Jul; 28(5):299-306. PubMed ID: 10785294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The performance of bonded vs. pin-retained complex amalgam restorations: a five-year clinical evaluation.
    Summitt JB; Burgess JO; Berry TG; Robbins JW; Osborne JW; Haveman CW
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2001 Jul; 132(7):923-31. PubMed ID: 11480646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results.
    Mendonça JS; Neto RG; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Navarro MF; de Carvalho RM
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 May; 11(3):025-32. PubMed ID: 20461321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition.
    Manhart J; Chen H; Hamm G; Hickel R
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(5):481-508. PubMed ID: 15470871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.