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 *

386 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16122784)

  • 21. IPS Empress inlays and onlays after four years--a clinical study.
    Krämer N; Frankenberger R; Pelka M; Petschelt A
    J Dent; 1999 Jul; 27(5):325-31. PubMed ID: 10377606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength and adhesion of composite resin versus ceramic inlays in molars.
    Dejak B; Mlotkowski A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):131-40. PubMed ID: 18262014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A 10-year prospective evaluation of CAD/CAM-manufactured (Cerec) ceramic inlays cemented with a chemically cured or dual-cured resin composite.
    Sjögren G; Molin M; van Dijken JW
    Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(2):241-6. PubMed ID: 15119879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Short-term clinical evaluation of inlay and onlay restorations made with a ceromer.
    Monaco C; Baldissara P; dall'Orologio GD; Scotti R
    Int J Prosthodont; 2001; 14(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 11842911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A prospective clinical study of ceromer inlays: results up to 53 months.
    Kükrer D; Gemalmaz D; Kuybulu EO; Bozkurt FO
    Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(1):17-23. PubMed ID: 15008227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Influence of tissue characteristics at margins on leakage of Class II indirect porcelain restorations.
    Ferrari M; Mason PN; Fabianelli A; Cagidiaco MC; Kugel G; Davidson CL
    Am J Dent; 1999 Jun; 12(3):134-42. PubMed ID: 10649936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. All-ceramic partial coverage restorations--midterm results of a 5-year prospective clinical splitmouth study.
    Guess PC; Strub JR; Steinhart N; Wolkewitz M; Stappert CF
    J Dent; 2009 Aug; 37(8):627-37. PubMed ID: 19477570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
    Lange RT; Pfeiffer P
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Five-year evaluation of two resin-retained ceramic systems: a retrospective study in a general practice setting.
    Arnelund CF; Johansson A; Ericson M; Häger P; Fyrberg KA
    Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(3):302-6. PubMed ID: 15237876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations.
    Krämer N; García-Godoy F; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2005 Apr; 18(2):75-81. PubMed ID: 15973822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays.
    Otto T; De Nisco S
    Int J Prosthodont; 2002; 15(2):122-8. PubMed ID: 11951800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Comparison of 2 bonding systems and survival of fiber-reinforced composite inlay fixed partial dentures.
    Monaco C; Ferrari M; Caldari M; Baldissara P; Scotti R
    Int J Prosthodont; 2006; 19(6):577-85. PubMed ID: 17165297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: clinical and microscopic results after 2 years.
    Krämer N; Reinelt C; García-Godoy F; Taschner M; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2009 Aug; 22(4):228-34. PubMed ID: 19824560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Finishing and polishing of indirect composite and ceramic inlays in-vivo: occlusal surfaces.
    Jung M; Wehlen O; Klimek J
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(2):131-41. PubMed ID: 15088723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic onlays: a 4-year retrospective study.
    Naeselius K; Arnelund CF; Molin MK
    Int J Prosthodont; 2008; 21(1):40-4. PubMed ID: 18350945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 6-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays.
    Hayashi M; Tsuchitani Y; Miura M; Takeshige F; Ebisu S
    Oper Dent; 1998; 23(6):318-26. PubMed ID: 9855855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Two-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays.
    Peumans M; De Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Poitevin A; Lambrechts P; Van Meerbeek B
    J Adhes Dent; 2010 Apr; 12(2):151-61. PubMed ID: 20157666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years.
    Frankenberger R; Taschner M; Garcia-Godoy F; Petschelt A; Krämer N
    J Adhes Dent; 2008 Oct; 10(5):393-8. PubMed ID: 19058686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Chairside vs. labside ceramic inlays: effect of temporary restoration and adhesive luting on enamel cracks and marginal integrity.
    Frankenberger R; Krämer N; Appelt A; Lohbauer U; Naumann M; Roggendorf MJ
    Dent Mater; 2011 Sep; 27(9):892-8. PubMed ID: 21708404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Microleakage of porcelain veneer restorations bonded to enamel and dentin with a new self-adhesive resin-based dental cement.
    Ibarra G; Johnson GH; Geurtsen W; Vargas MA
    Dent Mater; 2007 Feb; 23(2):218-25. PubMed ID: 16499961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.