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 *

99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17057677)

  • 1. Eight year results with direct ceramic restorations (Cerana).
    Millar BJ; Robinson PB
    Br Dent J; 2006 Oct; 201(8):515-520. PubMed ID: 17057677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cerana--a direct ceramic inlay technique.
    Millar BJ
    Prim Dent Care; 1999 Apr; 6(2):59-62. PubMed ID: 11819882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A 3-year clinical evaluation of Cerana prefabricated ceramic inlays.
    Odman P
    Int J Prosthodont; 2002; 15(1):79-82. PubMed ID: 11887604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results.
    Mendonça JS; Neto RG; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Navarro MF; de Carvalho RM
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 May; 11(3):025-32. PubMed ID: 20461321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays.
    Hayashi M; Tsuchitani Y; Kawamura Y; Miura M; Takeshige F; Ebisu S
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):473-81. PubMed ID: 11203859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: 12-year follow-up.
    Santos MJ; Freitas MC; Azevedo LM; Santos GC; Navarro MF; Francischone CE; Mondelli RF
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Sep; 20(7):1683-90. PubMed ID: 26662120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cerana--a new method for the restoration of teeth with prefabricated ceramic inlays.
    Odman P; Nilsson E; Pietruszka K
    J Oral Rehabil; 1998 May; 25(5):340-7. PubMed ID: 9639157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up.
    Wassell RW; Walls AW; McCabe JF
    J Dent; 2000 Aug; 28(6):375-82. PubMed ID: 10856800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: five-year follow-up.
    Santos MJ; Mondelli RF; Navarro MF; Francischone CE; Rubo JH; Santos GC
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 22856680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays after six years: wear of luting composites.
    Krämer N; Frankenberger R
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):466-72. PubMed ID: 11203858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior.
    Frankenberger R; Petschelt A; Krämer N
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):459-65. PubMed ID: 11203857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: two-year clinical follow up.
    Coelho Santos MJ; Mondelli RF; Lauris JR; Navarro MF
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 15088722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Fourteen years clinical evaluation of leucite-reinforced ceramic inlays luted using two different adhesion strategies.
    Taschner M; Stirnweiss A; Frankenberger R; Kramer N; Galler KM; Maier E
    J Dent; 2022 Aug; 123():104210. PubMed ID: 35760206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Computer-aided designed/computer-assisted manufactured composite resin versus ceramic single-tooth restorations: a 3-year clinical study.
    Vanoorbeek S; Vandamme K; Lijnen I; Naert I
    Int J Prosthodont; 2010; 23(3):223-30. PubMed ID: 20552087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays luted with self-adhesive resin cement: a 2-year in vivo study.
    Taschner M; Krämer N; Lohbauer U; Pelka M; Breschi L; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R
    Dent Mater; 2012 May; 28(5):535-40. PubMed ID: 22236770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations.
    Krämer N; Lohbauer U; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2000 Nov; 13(Spec No):60D-76D. PubMed ID: 11763920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. One-year evaluation of an Ormocer restorative-a multipractice clinical trial.
    Rosin M; Steffen H; Konschake C; Greese U; Teichmann D; Hartmann A; Meyer G
    Clin Oral Investig; 2003 Mar; 7(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 12673433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years.
    Krämer N; Frankenberger R
    Dent Mater; 2005 Mar; 21(3):262-71. PubMed ID: 15705433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A new approach to restorative dentistry: fabricating ceramic restorations using CEREC CAD/CAM.
    Estafan D; David A; David S; Calamia J
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 1999 Jun; 20(6):555-60; quiz 562. PubMed ID: 10650368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.