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 *

1065 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17910230)

  • 21. Effect of composite resin placement techniques on the microleakage of two self-etching dentin-bonding agents.
    Santini A; Plasschaert AJ; Mitchell S
    Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):132-6. PubMed ID: 11572288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Dentin bond strength and marginal adaptation: direct composite resins vs ceramic inlays.
    Frankenberger R; Sindel J; Krämer N; Petschelt A
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(3):147-55. PubMed ID: 10530276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Enamel and dentin bond strength and bonding mechanism to dentin of Gluma CPS to primary teeth.
    Fritz U; García-Godoy F; Finger WJ
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1997; 64(1):32-8. PubMed ID: 9096816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding.
    Hannig M; Reinhardt KJ; Bott B
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(3):172-80. PubMed ID: 10530279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. An in-vitro study of microleakage around class V cavities bonded with a self-etching material versus a conventional two-bottle system.
    Salim S; Santini A; Husham A
    Prim Dent Care; 2006 Jul; 13(3):107-11. PubMed ID: 16836814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Marginal hybrid layer in Class V restorations.
    Prati C; Pashley DH; Chersoni S; Mongiorgi R
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(3):228-33. PubMed ID: 11203821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Marginal Quality of Class II Composite Restorations Placed in Bulk Compared to an Incremental Technique: Evaluation with SEM and Stereomicroscope.
    Heintze SD; Monreal D; Peschke A
    J Adhes Dent; 2015 Apr; 17(2):147-54. PubMed ID: 25893223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Comparative in vivo and in vitro investigation of interfacial bond variability.
    Hannig M; Friedrichs C
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 11203774
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. An in vitro comparison of metal and transparent matrices used for bonded class II resin composite restorations.
    Müllejans R; Badawi MO; Raab WH; Lang H
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(2):122-6. PubMed ID: 12670066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effect of restorative technique and thermal/mechanical treatment on marginal adaptation and compressive strength of esthetic restorations.
    de Paula AB; Duque C; Correr-Sobrinho L; Puppin-Rontani RM
    Oper Dent; 2008; 33(4):434-40. PubMed ID: 18666502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Restoration interface microleakage using one total-etch and three self-etch adhesives.
    Deliperi S; Bardwell DN; Wegley C
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(2):179-84. PubMed ID: 17427828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Effect of different modes of light curing and resin composites on microleakage of Class II restorations.
    Hardan LS; Amm EW; Ghayad A
    Odontostomatol Trop; 2008 Dec; 31(124):27-34. PubMed ID: 19441264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in small to moderate-sized Class II preparations of conventional design.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 May; 31(5):347-52. PubMed ID: 11203946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Microleakage in class II restorations: open vs closed centripetal build-up technique.
    Fabianelli A; Sgarra A; Goracci C; Cantoro A; Pollington S; Ferrari M
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(3):308-13. PubMed ID: 20533631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Evaluation of bond strength and internal adaptation between the dental cavity and adhesives applied in one and two layers.
    Soares CG; Carracho HG; Braun AP; Borges GA; Hirakata LM; Spohr AM
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(1):69-76. PubMed ID: 20166413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Marginal adaptation and microtensile bond strength of composite indirect restorations bonded to dentin treated with adhesive and low-viscosity composite.
    de Andrade OS; de Goes MF; Montes MA
    Dent Mater; 2007 Mar; 23(3):279-87. PubMed ID: 16546249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Laboratory evaluation of compomers in Class V restorations.
    Chersoni S; Lorenzi R; Ferrieri P; Prati C
    Am J Dent; 1997 Jun; 10(3):147-51. PubMed ID: 9545890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Microleakage of four composite resin systems in class II restorations.
    Majeed A; Osman YI; Al-Omari T
    SADJ; 2009 Nov; 64(10):484-8. PubMed ID: 20306869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The effect on shear bond strength of rewetting dry dentin with two desensitizers.
    Al Qahtani MQ; Platt JA; Moore BK; Cochran MA
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(3):287-96. PubMed ID: 12760701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Microtensile bond strengths and interfacial examination of a polyalkenoate-based 1-step adhesive.
    Perdigão J; Sezinando A; Gomes G
    Am J Dent; 2011 Aug; 24(4):215-20. PubMed ID: 22016915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 54.