140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15935540)
1. A comparison of fatigue resistance of three materials for cusp-replacing adhesive restorations.
Kuijs RH; Fennis WM; Kreulen CM; Roeters FJ; Verdonschot N; Creugers NH
J Dent; 2006 Jan; 34(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 15935540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Fatigue resistance of teeth restored with cuspal-coverage composite restorations.
Fennis WM; Kuijs RH; Kreulen CM; Verdonschot N; Creugers NH
Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(3):313-7. PubMed ID: 15237878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode.
Soares PV; Santos-Filho PC; Martins LR; Soares CJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Jan; 99(1):30-7. PubMed ID: 18182183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. In vitro fracture resistance of fiber reinforced cusp-replacing composite restorations.
Fennis WM; Tezvergil A; Kuijs RH; Lassila LV; Kreulen CM; Creugers NH; Vallittu PK
Dent Mater; 2005 Jun; 21(6):565-72. PubMed ID: 15904700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic inlays.
Hannig C; Westphal C; Becker K; Attin T
J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Oct; 94(4):342-9. PubMed ID: 16198171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with extensive composite resin restorations.
Plotino G; Buono L; Grande NM; Lamorgese V; Somma F
J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Mar; 99(3):225-32. PubMed ID: 18319094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Fracture load of composite resin and feldspathic all-ceramic CAD/CAM crowns.
Attia A; Abdelaziz KM; Freitag S; Kern M
J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Feb; 95(2):117-23. PubMed ID: 16473085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Thickness of CAD-CAM composite resin overlays influences fatigue resistance of endodontically treated premolars.
Magne P; Knezevic A
Dent Mater; 2009 Oct; 25(10):1264-8. PubMed ID: 19539358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A randomized clinical trial of cusp-replacing resin composite restorations: efficiency and short-term effectiveness.
Kuijs RH; Fennis WM; Kreulen CM; Roeters FJ; Creugers NH; Burgersdijk RC
Int J Prosthodont; 2006; 19(4):349-54. PubMed ID: 16900817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Fracture strength of restored premolars.
Camacho GB; Gonçalves M; Nonaka T; Osório AB
Am J Dent; 2007 Apr; 20(2):121-4. PubMed ID: 17542207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Clinical evaluation of direct cuspal coverage with posterior composite resin restorations.
Deliperi S; Bardwell DN
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2006; 18(5):256-65; discussion 266-7. PubMed ID: 16987320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Fracture strength of cusp replacing resin composite restorations.
Kuijs RH; Fennis WM; Kreulen CM; Roeters JJ; Burgersdijk RC
Am J Dent; 2003 Feb; 16(1):13-6. PubMed ID: 12744406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of load-bearing capacity of direct resin-bonded fiber-reinforced composite FPDs with four framework designs.
Xie Q; Lassila LV; Vallittu PK
J Dent; 2007 Jul; 35(7):578-82. PubMed ID: 17513033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Marginal adaptation and microtensile bond strength of composite indirect restorations bonded to dentin treated with adhesive and low-viscosity composite.
de Andrade OS; de Goes MF; Montes MA
Dent Mater; 2007 Mar; 23(3):279-87. PubMed ID: 16546249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The influence of adhesive luting systems on bond strength and failure mode of an indirect micro ceramic resin-based composite veneer.
Sarabi N; Ghavamnasiri M; Forooghbakhsh A
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2009 Jan; 10(1):33-40. PubMed ID: 19142254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Fracture resistance of the buccal cusps of root filled maxillary premolar teeth restored with various techniques.
Siso SH; Hürmüzlü F; Turgut M; Altundaşar E; Serper A; Er K
Int Endod J; 2007 Mar; 40(3):161-8. PubMed ID: 17305692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Fracture resistance of resin-based composite and ceramic inlays luted to sound human teeth.
da Silva SB; Hilgert LA; Busato AL
Am J Dent; 2004 Dec; 17(6):404-6. PubMed ID: 15724750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Can internal stresses explain the fracture resistance of cusp-replacing composite restorations?
Fennis WM; Kuijs RH; Barink M; Kreulen CM; Verdonschot N; Creugers NH
Eur J Oral Sci; 2005 Oct; 113(5):443-8. PubMed ID: 16202034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. In vitro evaluation of push-out bond strength of direct ceramic inlays to tooth surface with fiber-reinforced composite at the interface.
Cekic I; Ergun G; Uctasli S; Lassila LV
J Prosthet Dent; 2007 May; 97(5):271-8. PubMed ID: 17547945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Molar fracture resistance after adhesive restoration with ceramic inlays or resin-based composites.
Bremer BD; Geurtsen W
Am J Dent; 2001 Aug; 14(4):216-20. PubMed ID: 11699740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
