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 *

340 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1423449)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Mutans streptococci in interproximal plaque from amalgam and glass ionomer restorations.
    Svanberg M; Krasse B; Ornerfeldt HO
    Caries Res; 1990; 24(2):133-6. PubMed ID: 2111222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Clinical evaluation of glass ionomer-silver cermet restorations in primary molars: one year results.
    Hung TW; Richardson AS
    J Can Dent Assoc; 1990 Mar; 56(3):239-40. PubMed ID: 2110027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Tunnel restorations: a long-term pilot study over a minimum of five years.
    Lumley PJ; Fisher FJ
    J Dent; 1995 Aug; 23(4):213-5. PubMed ID: 7629325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Artificially formed caries-like lesions around Class II glass ionomer restorations in primary molars.
    Sepet E; Aytepe Z; Guven Y
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1995; 20(1):37-40. PubMed ID: 8634193
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Glass ionomer-silver cermet Class II tunnel-restorations for primary molars.
    Croll TP
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1988; 55(3):177-82. PubMed ID: 2968382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. A comparative study of plaque mutans streptococci levels in children receiving glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations.
    Ertuğrul F; Eltem R; Eronat C
    J Dent Child (Chic); 2003; 70(1):10-4. PubMed ID: 12762601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Tunnel restorations in permanent teeth. A 7 year follow up study.
    Hasselrot L
    Swed Dent J; 1998; 22(1-2):1-7. PubMed ID: 9646387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches.
    Mandari GJ; Frencken JE; van't Hof MA
    Caries Res; 2003; 37(4):246-53. PubMed ID: 12771499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Silver amalgam versus resin modified GIC class-II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical evaluation.
    Dutta BN; Gauba K; Tewari A; Chawla HS
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2001 Sep; 19(3):118-22. PubMed ID: 11817797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. A pilot study of the marginal adaptation and surface morphology of glass-cermet cements.
    Chu CH; King NM; Lee AM; Yiu CK; Wei SH
    Quintessence Int; 1996 Jul; 27(7):493-501. PubMed ID: 8941827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Comparison of antibacterial activity of glass-ionomer cement and amalgam in class two restorations by Streptococcus mutans count analysis at fixed intervals: an in vivo study.
    Tegginmani VS; Goel B; Uppin V; Horatti P; Kumar LS; Nainani A
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2013 May; 14(3):381-6. PubMed ID: 24171977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.