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 *

420 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17936127)

  • 1. The influence of cavity preparation design on fracture strength and mode of fracture of laboratory-processed composite resin restorations.
    Fonseca RB; Fernandes-Neto AJ; Correr-Sobrinho L; Soares CJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Oct; 98(4):277-84. PubMed ID: 17936127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Influence of cavity preparation design on fracture resistance of posterior Leucite-reinforced ceramic restorations.
    Soares CJ; Martins LR; Fonseca RB; Correr-Sobrinho L; Fernandes Neto AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Jun; 95(6):421-9. PubMed ID: 16765154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials.
    Dalpino PH; Francischone CE; Ishikiriama A; Franco EB
    Am J Dent; 2002 Dec; 15(6):389-94. PubMed ID: 12691276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with extensive composite resin restorations.
    Plotino G; Buono L; Grande NM; Lamorgese V; Somma F
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Mar; 99(3):225-32. PubMed ID: 18319094
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with direct and indirect adhesive techniques.
    Santos MJ; Bezerra RB
    J Can Dent Assoc; 2005 Sep; 71(8):585. PubMed ID: 16202199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic inlays.
    Hannig C; Westphal C; Becker K; Attin T
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Oct; 94(4):342-9. PubMed ID: 16198171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The effect of cuspal coverage on the fracture resistance of teeth restored with indirect composite resin restorations.
    Burke FJ; Wilson NH; Watts DC
    Quintessence Int; 1993 Dec; 24(12):875-80. PubMed ID: 20830883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. In vitro evaluation of push-out bond strength of direct ceramic inlays to tooth surface with fiber-reinforced composite at the interface.
    Cekic I; Ergun G; Uctasli S; Lassila LV
    J Prosthet Dent; 2007 May; 97(5):271-8. PubMed ID: 17547945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength and adhesion of composite resin versus ceramic inlays in molars.
    Dejak B; Mlotkowski A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):131-40. PubMed ID: 18262014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part II: strain measurement and stress distribution.
    Soares PV; Santos-Filho PC; Gomide HA; Araujo CA; Martins LR; Soares CJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):114-22. PubMed ID: 18262012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Molar fracture resistance after adhesive restoration with ceramic inlays or resin-based composites.
    Bremer BD; Geurtsen W
    Am J Dent; 2001 Aug; 14(4):216-20. PubMed ID: 11699740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The influence of the cavity preparation design on marginal accuracy of laboratory-processed resin composite restorations.
    Fonseca RB; Correr-Sobrinho L; Fernandes-Neto AJ; Quagliatto PS; Soares CJ
    Clin Oral Investig; 2008 Mar; 12(1):53-9. PubMed ID: 17690921
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. The effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations restored with composite.
    Belli S; Erdemir A; Ozcopur M; Eskitascioglu G
    Int Endod J; 2005 Feb; 38(2):73-80. PubMed ID: 15667628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Influence of different transitional restorations on the fracture resistance of premolar teeth.
    Qualtrough AJ; Cawte SG; Wilson NH
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(3):267-72. PubMed ID: 11357569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of different onlay systems on fracture resistance and failure pattern of endodontically treated mandibular molars restored with and without glass fiber posts.
    Salameh Z; Ounsi HF; Aboushelib MN; Al-Hamdan R; Sadig W; Ferrari M
    Am J Dent; 2010 Apr; 23(2):81-6. PubMed ID: 20608297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.