729 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16202199)
1. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with direct and indirect adhesive techniques.
Santos MJ; Bezerra RB
J Can Dent Assoc; 2005 Sep; 71(8):585. PubMed ID: 16202199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials.
Dalpino PH; Francischone CE; Ishikiriama A; Franco EB
Am J Dent; 2002 Dec; 15(6):389-94. PubMed ID: 12691276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Fracture resistance of thermal cycled and endodontically treated premolars with adhesive restorations.
de V Habekost L; Camacho GB; Azevedo EC; Demarco FF
J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Sep; 98(3):186-92. PubMed ID: 17854619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of restoration method on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars.
Yamada Y; Tsubota Y; Fukushima S
Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(1):94-8. PubMed ID: 15008239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Fatigue load of teeth restored with bonded direct composite and indirect ceramic inlays in MOD class II cavity preparations.
Shor A; Nicholls JI; Phillips KM; Libman WJ
Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(1):64-9. PubMed ID: 12675458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. The effect of different restoration techniques on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated molars.
Cobankara FK; Unlu N; Cetin AR; Ozkan HB
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(5):526-33. PubMed ID: 18833859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Influence of endodontic treatment, post insertion, and ceramic restoration on the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars.
Bitter K; Meyer-Lueckel H; Fotiadis N; Blunck U; Neumann K; Kielbassa AM; Paris S
Int Endod J; 2010 Jun; 43(6):469-77. PubMed ID: 20536574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Fracture resistance of teeth with Class II bonded amalgam and new tooth-colored restorations.
Görücü J; Ozgünaltay G
Oper Dent; 2003; 28(5):501-7. PubMed ID: 14531594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part II: strain measurement and stress distribution.
Soares PV; Santos-Filho PC; Gomide HA; Araujo CA; Martins LR; Soares CJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):114-22. PubMed ID: 18262012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Resistance to maxillary premolar fractures after restoration of class II preparations with resin composite or ceromer.
de Freitas CR; Miranda MI; de Andrade MF; Flores VH; Vaz LG; Guimarães C
Quintessence Int; 2002 Sep; 33(8):589-94. PubMed ID: 12238690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The influence of cavity preparation design on fracture strength and mode of fracture of laboratory-processed composite resin restorations.
Fonseca RB; Fernandes-Neto AJ; Correr-Sobrinho L; Soares CJ
J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Oct; 98(4):277-84. PubMed ID: 17936127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations restored with composite.
Belli S; Erdemir A; Ozcopur M; Eskitascioglu G
Int Endod J; 2005 Feb; 38(2):73-80. PubMed ID: 15667628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Influence of cavity design and restorative material on the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars.
Cubas GB; Camacho GB; Pereira-Cenci T; Nonaka T; Barbin EL
Gen Dent; 2010; 58(2):e84-8. PubMed ID: 20236909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of fracture resistance of teeth restored with ceramic inlay and resin composite: an in vitro study.
Desai PD; Das UK
Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(6):877. PubMed ID: 22484893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. In vitro comparison of cuspal fracture resistances of posterior teeth restored with various adhesive restorations.
Cötert HS; Sen BH; Balkan M
Int J Prosthodont; 2001; 14(4):374-8. PubMed ID: 11508095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
