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 *

1023 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15942614)

  • 1. Type IV gypsum compatibility with five addition-reaction silicone impression materials.
    Butta R; Tredwin CJ; Nesbit M; Moles DR
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Jun; 93(6):540-4. PubMed ID: 15942614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of a laboratory surfactant on compatibility of type IV dental stones with addition-cured silicone impression materials.
    Tredwin CJ; Nesbit M; Butta R; Moles DR
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2008 Jun; 16(2):73-6. PubMed ID: 18637382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Detail reproduction, contact angles, and die hardness of elastomeric impression and gypsum die material combinations.
    Ragain JC; Grosko ML; Raj M; Ryan TN; Johnston WM
    Int J Prosthodont; 2000; 13(3):214-20. PubMed ID: 11203635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The wetting of surface-treated silicone impression materials by gypsum mixes containing disinfectants and modifiers.
    Abdelaziz KM; Combe EC; Hodges JS
    J Prosthodont; 2005 Jun; 14(2):104-9. PubMed ID: 16011621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of storage time on the accuracy and dimensional stability of reversible hydrocolloid impression material.
    Schleier PE; Gardner FM; Nelson SK; Pashley DH
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Sep; 86(3):244-50. PubMed ID: 11552162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel two-step putty/light-body impression technique: an in vitro study.
    Caputi S; Varvara G
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Apr; 99(4):274-81. PubMed ID: 18395537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of dimensional accuracy between three different addition cured silicone impression materials.
    Forrester-Baker L; Seymour KG; Samarawickrama D; Zou L; Cherukara G; Patel M
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2005 Jun; 13(2):69-74. PubMed ID: 16011234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect of immersion disinfection with Perform-ID on alginate, an alginate alternative, an addition-cured silicone and resultant type III gypsum casts.
    Ahmad S; Tredwin CJ; Nesbit M; Moles DR
    Br Dent J; 2007 Jan; 202(1):E1; discussion 36-7. PubMed ID: 17220826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Compatibility of tissue conditioners and dental stones: effect on surface roughness.
    Murata H; Hong G; Li YA; Hamada T
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Mar; 93(3):274-81. PubMed ID: 15775929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Irreversible hydrocolloids for crown and bridge impressions: effect of different treatments on compatibility of irreversible hydrocolloid impression material with type IV gypsums.
    Eriksson A; Ockert-Eriksson G; Lockowandt P; Lindén LA
    Dent Mater; 1996 Mar; 12(2):74-82. PubMed ID: 9002847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Accuracy of a new ring-opening metathesis elastomeric dental impression material with spray and immersion disinfection.
    Kronström MH; Johnson GH; Hompesch RW
    J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Jan; 103(1):23-30. PubMed ID: 20105678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time.
    Thongthammachat S; Moore BK; Barco MT; Hovijitra S; Brown DT; Andres CJ
    J Prosthodont; 2002 Jun; 11(2):98-108. PubMed ID: 12087547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions.
    Ceyhan JA; Johnson GH; Lepe X
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Aug; 90(2):143-9. PubMed ID: 12886207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of disinfection on irreversible hydrocolloid and alternative impression materials and the resultant gypsum casts.
    Suprono MS; Kattadiyil MT; Goodacre CJ; Winer MS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2012 Oct; 108(4):250-8. PubMed ID: 23031732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Irreversible hydrocolloid and gypsum interactions.
    Reisbick MH; Johnston WM; Rashid RG
    Int J Prosthodont; 1997; 10(1):7-13. PubMed ID: 9484064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Pre- and post-set hydrophilicity of elastomeric impression materials.
    Michalakis KX; Bakopoulou A; Hirayama H; Garefis DP; Garefis PD
    J Prosthodont; 2007; 16(4):238-48. PubMed ID: 17559537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of salivary films on the surface properties of elastomeric impression materials.
    Vassilakos N; Fernandes CP
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 1993 Sep; 2(1):29-33. PubMed ID: 8180615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Compatibility of a new epoxy resin with impression materials.
    Schelb E; Baracat SA; Almaguer R
    Am J Dent; 1990 Aug; 3(4):171-4. PubMed ID: 2076244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Accuracy of newly formulated fast-setting elastomeric impression materials.
    Wadhwani CP; Johnson GH; Lepe X; Raigrodski AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Jun; 93(6):530-9. PubMed ID: 15942613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Factors affecting the accuracy of elastometric impression materials.
    Chen SY; Liang WM; Chen FN
    J Dent; 2004 Nov; 32(8):603-9. PubMed ID: 15476954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 52.