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 *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17550039)

  • 21. Fracture strength of cusp replacing resin composite restorations.
    Kuijs RH; Fennis WM; Kreulen CM; Roeters JJ; Burgersdijk RC
    Am J Dent; 2003 Feb; 16(1):13-6. PubMed ID: 12744406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The effects of cavity preparation and lamination on bond strength and fracture of tooth-colored restorations in primary molars.
    Suwatviroj P; Messer LB; Palamara JE
    Pediatr Dent; 2003; 25(6):534-40. PubMed ID: 14733466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Bonded amalgam restorations: using a glass-ionomer as an adhesive liner.
    Chen RS; Liu CC; Cheng MR; Lin CP
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):411-7. PubMed ID: 11203849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of three direct restorative materials on molar cuspal fracture resistance.
    Allara FW; Diefenderfer KE; Molinaro JD
    Am J Dent; 2004 Aug; 17(4):228-32. PubMed ID: 15478480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with ormocer and packable composite.
    Hürmüzlü F; Kiremitçi A; Serper A; Altundaşar E; Siso SH
    J Endod; 2003 Dec; 29(12):838-40. PubMed ID: 14686819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Effect of Overlying Material on Final Setting of Biodentine ® in Primary Molar Pulpotomies.
    Pham CL; Kratunova E; Marion I; da Fonseca MA; Alapati SB
    Pediatr Dent; 2019 Mar; 41(2):140-145. PubMed ID: 30992113
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Success rate of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy in primary molars restored with amalgam and stainless steel crowns.
    Sonmez D; Duruturk L
    Br Dent J; 2010 May; 208(9):E18; discussion 408-9. PubMed ID: 20448584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Clinicians' choices of restorative materials for children.
    Tran LA; Messer LB
    Aust Dent J; 2003 Dec; 48(4):221-32. PubMed ID: 14738124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with the bonded amalgam technique.
    Dias de Souza GM; Pereira GD; Dias CT; Paulillo LA
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(5):511-5. PubMed ID: 11551017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Long-term clinical evaluation of fracture and pulp injury following glass-ionomer cement or composite resin applied as a base filling in teeth restored with amalgam.
    De C Luz MA; Ciaramicoli-Rodrigues MT; Garone Netto N; De Lima AC
    J Oral Rehabil; 2001 Jul; 28(7):634-9. PubMed ID: 11422695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Restoration of Class II carious lesions in primary molars using light-hardening glass-ionomer-resin cement.
    Croll TP; Killian CM
    Quintessence Int; 1993 Aug; 24(8):561-5. PubMed ID: 8272494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Microleakage of Ormocer-based restorative material in primary teeth: an in vivo study.
    Al-Harbi SD; Farsi N
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 2007; 32(1):13-7. PubMed ID: 18274464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. In Vitro Assessment of Retention and Resistance Failure Loads of Teeth Restored with a Complete Coverage Restoration and Different Core Materials.
    Tsiagali V; Kirmanidou Y; Pissiotis A; Michalakis K
    J Prosthodont; 2019 Jan; 28(1):e229-e236. PubMed ID: 29143388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The influence of a packable resin composite, conventional resin composite and amalgam on molar cuspal stiffness.
    Molinaro JD; Diefenderfer KE; Strother JM
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(5):516-24. PubMed ID: 12216572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars--a three year clinical evaluation.
    Ostlund J; Möller K; Koch G
    Swed Dent J; 1992; 16(3):81-6. PubMed ID: 1496459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Clinical evaluation of glass ionomer-silver cermet restorations in primary molars: one year results.
    Hung TW; Richardson AS
    J Can Dent Assoc; 1990 Mar; 56(3):239-40. PubMed ID: 2110027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.