1029 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17305692)
41. Fracture resistance and deflection of pulpless anterior teeth restored with composite or porcelain veneers.
D'Arcangelo C; De Angelis F; Vadini M; D'Amario M; Caputi S
J Endod; 2010 Jan; 36(1):153-6. PubMed ID: 20003956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. [Comparison of fracture resistance of pulpless teeth restored with fiber reinforced composite posts and three kinds of resin core material].
Zhang WY; Chen JH; Shi CX; Jia AQ; Yang LD
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2004 Oct; 22(5):404-5, 414. PubMed ID: 15562654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. 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]
44. Cyclic loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fibre and titanium alloy posts: fracture resistance and failure modes.
Abdul Salam SN; Banerjee A; Mannocci F; Pilecki P; Watson TF
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2006 Sep; 14(3):98-104. PubMed ID: 17024981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Assessment of laminate technique using glass ionomer and resin composite for restoration of root filled teeth.
Taha NA; Palamara JE; Messer HH
J Dent; 2012 Aug; 40(8):617-23. PubMed ID: 22521705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars with fibre-reinforced composite restorations.
Geerts G; Pitout E; Visser H
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2011 Mar; 19(1):25-31. PubMed ID: 21528685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Effect of gamma irradiation and restorative material on the biomechanical behaviour of root filled premolars.
Soares CJ; Roscoe MG; Castro CG; Santana FR; Raposo LH; Quagliatto PS; Novais VR
Int Endod J; 2011 Nov; 44(11):1047-54. PubMed ID: 21740445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. 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]
49. Marginal adaptation, retention and fracture resistance of adhesive composite restorations on devital teeth with and without posts.
Krejci I; Duc O; Dietschi D; de Campos E
Oper Dent; 2003; 28(2):127-35. PubMed ID: 12670067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. 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]
51. 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]
52. In vitro fracture resistance of endodontically-treated maxillary premolars.
Oskoee SS; Oskoee PA; Navimipour EJ; Shahi S
Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):510-4. PubMed ID: 17910229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. The effect of fiber dowel heights in resin composite cores on restoration failures of endodontically treated teeth.
Mekayarajjananonth T; Chitcharus N; Winkler S; Bogert MC
J Oral Implantol; 2009; 35(2):63-9. PubMed ID: 19400060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. The influence of cavity design and glass fiber posts on biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated premolars.
Soares CJ; Soares PV; de Freitas Santos-Filho PC; Castro CG; Magalhaes D; Versluis A
J Endod; 2008 Aug; 34(8):1015-9. PubMed ID: 18634938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Strengthening effect of horizontally placed fiberglass posts in endodontically-treated teeth restored with direct resin composite.
Favero FJ; De Melo TA; Stona D; Mota EG; Spohr AM; Burnett LH
Am J Dent; 2015 Jun; 28(3):143-9. PubMed ID: 26201225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Fracture resistance and microtensile bond strength of maxillary premolars restored with two resin composite inlay systems.
Sun YS; Chen YM; Smales RJ; Yip KH
Am J Dent; 2008 Apr; 21(2):97-100. PubMed ID: 18578176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Fracture resistance of re-attached coronal fragments--influence of different adhesive materials and bevel preparation.
Demarco FF; Fay RM; Pinzon LM; Powers JM
Dent Traumatol; 2004 Jun; 20(3):157-63. PubMed ID: 15144447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Influence of remaining coronal tooth structure location on the fracture resistance of restored endodontically treated anterior teeth.
Ng CC; Dumbrigue HB; Al-Bayat MI; Griggs JA; Wakefield CW
J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Apr; 95(4):290-6. PubMed ID: 16616126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Fracture strength of root filled premolar teeth restored with silorane and methacrylate-based resin composite.
Taha NA; Maghaireh GA; Bagheri R; Abu Holy A
J Dent; 2015 Jun; 43(6):735-41. PubMed ID: 25656772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Effect of two different types of fibers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with composite resin.
Khan SI; Anupama R; Deepalakshmi M; Kumar KS
J Adhes Dent; 2013 Apr; 15(2):167-71. PubMed ID: 23534017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
