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.
5. Biocompatibility of posterior restorative materials. Schuster GS; Lefebvre CA; Wataha JC; White SN J Calif Dent Assoc; 1996 Sep; 24(9):17-31. PubMed ID: 9120609 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. An overview of treatment considerations for esthetic restorations: a review of the literature. Sadowsky SJ J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Dec; 96(6):433-42. PubMed ID: 17174661 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Preservation-based approaches to restore posterior teeth with amalgam, resin or a combination of materials. Baghdadi ZD Am J Dent; 2002 Feb; 15(1):54-65. PubMed ID: 12074231 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Attitudes of some European dental undergraduate students to the placement of direct restorative materials in posterior teeth. Lynch CD; Guillem SE; Nagrani B; Gilmour AS; Ericson D J Oral Rehabil; 2010 Dec; 37(12):916-26. PubMed ID: 20557432 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Alternatives to amalgam. Lyons K N Z Dent J; 1997 Jun; 93(412):47-50. PubMed ID: 9293745 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. The influence of restorative materials on marginal gingiva. Willershausen B; Köttgen C; Ernst CP Eur J Med Res; 2001 Oct; 6(10):433-9. PubMed ID: 11698230 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Amalgam. XI. Glass-ionomer as a possible substitute of amalgam: longevity]. Schuurs AH; van Amerongen JP Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1994 Jan; 101(1):6-9. PubMed ID: 11830988 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The combined composite resin and amalgam restoration for posterior teeth: a clinical report. Roda RS; Zwicker PF Quintessence Int; 1992 Jan; 23(1):9-13. PubMed ID: 1631274 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Pulpal response to a newly developed MMA based resin cement for bonding tooth-colored indirect restorations. Seki Y; Shimada Y; Foxton RM; Tagami J Am J Dent; 2006 Oct; 19(5):297-302. PubMed ID: 17076029 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Materials used to restore class II lesions in primary molars: a survey of California pediatric dentists. Pair RL; Udin RD; Tanbonliong T Pediatr Dent; 2004; 26(6):501-7. PubMed ID: 15646912 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Amalgam. X. Glass-ionomer cement: a biocompatible substitute for amalgam?]. Schuurs AH; van Amerongen JP Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1993 Nov; 100(11):484-8. PubMed ID: 11822129 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Roeters JM; Loomans BA Dent Mater; 2007 Jan; 23(1):2-8. PubMed ID: 16417916 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]