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 *

176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14966503)

  • 21. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing.
    Senawongse P; Pongprueksa P
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2007; 19(5):265-73; discussion 274-5. PubMed ID: 17877626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Scientific surface roughness values for resin based materials.
    Grossman ES; Rosen M; Cleaton-Jones PE; Volchansky A
    SADJ; 2004 Aug; 59(7):274, 276, 278-9. PubMed ID: 15537027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Effect of surface treatment on roughness and bond strength of a heat-pressed ceramic.
    Ayad MF; Fahmy NZ; Rosenstiel SF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 18262013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Finishing systems on the final surface roughness of composites.
    Koh R; Neiva G; Dennison J; Yaman P
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 Feb; 9(2):138-45. PubMed ID: 18264536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Surface roughness and gloss of dental materials as a function of force and polishing time in vitro.
    Heintze SD; Forjanic M; Rousson V
    Dent Mater; 2006 Feb; 22(2):146-65. PubMed ID: 16084582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites.
    Da Costa J; Ferracane J; Paravina RD; Mazur RF; Roeder L
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2007; 19(4):214-24; discussion 225-6. PubMed ID: 17635330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Surface wear on cervical restorations and adjacent enamel and root cementum caused by simulated long-term maintenance therapy.
    Rühling A; Wulf J; Schwahn C; Kocher T
    J Clin Periodontol; 2004 Apr; 31(4):293-8. PubMed ID: 15016258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Influence of surface roughness on mechanical strength of resin composite versus glass ceramic materials.
    Lohbauer U; Müller FA; Petschelt A
    Dent Mater; 2008 Feb; 24(2):250-6. PubMed ID: 17628659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Is surface roughness of resin composites affected by operator's performance?
    Jung M; Otte A; Klimek J
    Am J Dent; 2008 Feb; 21(1):3-6. PubMed ID: 18435367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Surface roughness and fatigue performance of commercially pure titanium and Ti-6Al-4V alloy after different polishing protocols.
    Guilherme AS; Henriques GE; Zavanelli RA; Mesquita MF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Apr; 93(4):378-85. PubMed ID: 15798689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Simulating irregular enamel surface texture in composite resin restorations.
    Croll TP
    Quintessence Int; 1988 Apr; 19(4):311-2. PubMed ID: 3269582
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Effect of different finishing and polishing agents on the surface roughness of cast pure titanium.
    Reddy ES; Patil NP; Guttal SS; Jagadish HG
    J Prosthodont; 2007; 16(4):263-8. PubMed ID: 17451480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. [Influence of finishing techniques on the surface roughness of metallic components of prosthetic restorations].
    Baciu ER; Forna NC
    Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi; 2010; 114(4):1198-203. PubMed ID: 21500480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Finishing/polishing of composite and compomer restoratives: effectiveness of one-step systems.
    Yap AU; Yap SH; Teo CK; Ng JJ
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(3):275-9. PubMed ID: 15195727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Surface roughness evaluation of composite resin polishing techniques.
    Goldstein GR; Waknine S
    Quintessence Int; 1989 Mar; 20(3):199-204. PubMed ID: 2762509
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effects of approximal finishing strips.
    Whitehead SA; Wilson NH; Watts DC
    Restorative Dent; 1990 Feb; 6(1):20-2, 24-5, 27-30. PubMed ID: 2284455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Two-year clinical evaluation of repair versus replacement of composite restorations.
    Gordan VV; Shen C; Riley J; Mjör IA
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2006; 18(3):144-53; discussion 154. PubMed ID: 16831187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Surface roughness of restorations and plaque adhesion. Experimental studies in vitro].
    Shimano N; Tomita F
    Kanagawa Shigaku; 1986 Mar; 20(4):476-81. PubMed ID: 3461167
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The effect of two different polishing techniques on microleakage of new composites in Class V restorations.
    Yalçin F; Korkmaz Y; Başeren M
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Nov; 7(5):18-25. PubMed ID: 17091136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Selected characteristics of an Ormocer and a conventional hybrid resin composite.
    Tagtekin DA; Yanikoglu FC; Bozkurt FO; Kologlu B; Sur H
    Dent Mater; 2004 Jun; 20(5):487-97. PubMed ID: 15081556
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.