116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17550039)
1. A comparative evaluation of the fracture strength of pulpotomized primary molars restored with various restorative materials.
Passi S; Pandit IK; Srivastava N; Gugnani N; Gupta M
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2007; 31(3):164-6. PubMed ID: 17550039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Fracture strength of adhesively restored pulpotomized primary molars.
el-Kalla IH; García-Godoy F
ASDC J Dent Child; 1999; 66(4):238-42, 228. PubMed ID: 10529865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cuspal fracture resistance and microleakage of glass ionomer cements in primary molars.
Virmani S; Tandon S; Rao N
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1997; 22(1):55-8. PubMed ID: 9643206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. In vitro study comparing fracture strength recovery of teeth restored with three esthetic bonding materials using different techniques.
Rajput A; Ataide I; Lambor R; Monteiro J; Tar M; Wadhawan N
Eur J Esthet Dent; 2010; 5(4):398-411. PubMed ID: 21069110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Esthetic restorative options for pulpotomized primary molars: a review of literature.
Guelmann M; Shapira J; Silva DR; Fuks AB
J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2011; 36(2):123-6. PubMed ID: 22524071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of thickness of cavity wall on fracture strength of pulpotomized primary molar teeth with class II amalgam restorations.
Mazhari F; Gharaghahi M
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent; 2008 Mar; 9(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 18328236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Microleakage of restorative techniques for pulpotomized primary molars.
Guelmann M; Bookmyer KL; Villalta P; García-Godoy F
J Dent Child (Chic); 2004; 71(3):209-11. PubMed ID: 15871455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Radiographic assessment of primary molar pulpotomies restored with resin-based materials.
Guelmann M; McIlwain MF; Primosch RE
Pediatr Dent; 2005; 27(1):24-7. PubMed ID: 15839391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials.
Sangwan B; Rishi R; Seal M; Jain K; Dutt P; Talukdar P
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2016 Jul; 17(7):549-52. PubMed ID: 27595720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with zirconia crowns, lithium disilicate or resin based ceramic endocrowns.
Ali AAEM; Abo-ELsoud AAE; Helmy YS
BMC Oral Health; 2024 May; 24(1):583. PubMed ID: 38764030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Community dental officers' use and knowledge of restorative techniques for primary molars: an audit of two Trusts in Wales.
Maggs-Rapport FL; Treasure ET; Chadwick BL
Int J Paediatr Dent; 2000 Jun; 10(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 11310098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of the mechanical behavior of posterior teeth with amalgam and composite MOD restorations.
Arola D; Galles LA; Sarubin MF
J Dent; 2001 Jan; 29(1):63-73. PubMed ID: 11137640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of three different core materials on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated deciduous mandibular second molars: an in vitro study.
Shah P; Gugwad SC; Bhat C; Lodaya R
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Jan; 13(1):66-70. PubMed ID: 22430696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results.
Yip HK; Smales RJ; Yu C; Gao XJ; Deng DM
Quintessence Int; 2002 Jan; 33(1):17-21. PubMed ID: 11887531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with glass ionomer cement or acid etch composite resin.
Trope M; Tronstad L
J Endod; 1991 Jun; 17(6):257-9. PubMed ID: 1940749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Fracture resistance of teeth with Class 2 silver amalgam, posterior composite, and glass cermet restorations.
Jagadish S; Yogesh BG
Oper Dent; 1990; 15(2):42-7. PubMed ID: 2374743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. In vitro fracture strength and patterns in root-filled teeth restored with different base materials.
Chan T; Küçükkaya Eren S; Wong R; Parashos P
Aust Dent J; 2018 Mar; 63(1):99-108. PubMed ID: 28941281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
