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 *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17394885)

  • 21. The prescription and relative outcomes of different materials used in general dental practice in the north west region of England to restore the primary dentition.
    Milsom KM; Tickle M; Blinkhorn A
    J Dent; 2002; 30(2-3):77-82. PubMed ID: 12381406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Dyract versus Tytin Class II restorations in primary molars: 36 months evaluation.
    Marks LA; Weerheijm KL; van Amerongen WE; Groen HJ; Martens LC
    Caries Res; 1999; 33(5):387-92. PubMed ID: 10460963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Two-year clinical evaluation of three restorative materials in primary molars.
    Daou MH; Tavernier B; Meyer JM
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2009; 34(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 19953810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Benefits and disadvantages of tooth-coloured alternatives to amalgam.
    Roulet JF
    J Dent; 1997 Nov; 25(6):459-73. PubMed ID: 9604577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations.
    Donly KJ; Segura A; Kanellis M; Erickson RL
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1999 Oct; 130(10):1459-66. PubMed ID: 10570589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive agents with dye under vacuum: an in vitro study.
    Parolia A; Kundabala M; Gupta V; Verma M; Batra C; Shenoy R; Srikant N
    Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(2):252-5. PubMed ID: 21891895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Longevity of conventional and bonded (sealed) amalgam restorations in a private general dental practice.
    Bonsor SJ; Chadwick RG
    Br Dent J; 2009 Jan; 206(2):E3; discussion 88-9. PubMed ID: 19148188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Approximating class II amalgam restorations for primary molars.
    Hill CJ
    Dent Clin North Am; 1973 Jan; 17(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 4508942
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A Retrospective Study of the 3-Year Survival Rate of Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement Class II Restorations in Primary Molars.
    Webman M; Mulki E; Roldan R; Arevalo O; Roberts JF; Garcia-Godoy F
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2016; 40(1):8-13. PubMed ID: 26696100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. [Composite polymers--an amalgam substitute for deciduous tooth cavities?].
    Krejci I; Gebauer L; Häusler T; Lutz F
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 1994; 104(6):724-30. PubMed ID: 8042022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial.
    Soncini JA; Maserejian NN; Trachtenberg F; Tavares M; Hayes C
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 Jun; 138(6):763-72. PubMed ID: 17545265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Marginal integrity of amalgam restorations.
    Leidal TI; Dahl JE
    Acta Odontol Scand; 1980; 38(2):81-8. PubMed ID: 6929645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A two-year clinical study of light-cured composite and amalgam restorations in primary molars.
    Barr-Agholme M; Odén A; Dahllöf G; Modeér T
    Dent Mater; 1991 Oct; 7(4):230-3. PubMed ID: 1814768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A comparison of glass cermet cement and amalgam restorations in primary molars.
    Hickel R; Voss A
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1990; 57(3):184-8. PubMed ID: 2111833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Clinical success of compomer and amalgam restorations in primary molars. Follow up in 36 months.
    Daou MH; Attin T; Göhring TN
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 2009; 119(11):1082-8. PubMed ID: 20020589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Clinical evaluation of Class II combined amalgam-composite restorations in primary molars after 6 to 30 months.
    Holan G; Chosack A; Eidelman E
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1996; 63(5):341-5. PubMed ID: 8958346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Restorative treatment on Class I and II restorations in primary molars: a survey of Brazilian dental schools.
    Motisuki C; Lima LM; dos Santos-Pinto L; Guelmann M
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2005; 30(2):175-8. PubMed ID: 16491976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition: results after 3 years.
    Taifour D; Frencken JE; Beiruti N; van 't Hof MA; Truin GJ
    Caries Res; 2002; 36(6):437-44. PubMed ID: 12459617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. [Effects of different class II cavity designs on stresses in restoration].
    Xu X; Sun Z; Tao L; Xiong H
    Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2002 Nov; 37(6):446-8. PubMed ID: 12641960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.