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.
3. Comparison of resistance features for complex amalgam restorations. Summitt JB; Burgess JO; Kaiser DA; Rux HW; Dutton FB Am J Dent; 1991 Dec; 4(6):268-72. PubMed ID: 1814348 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The retention of titanium pins in high-copper amalgam and their influence on its fracture resistance. Brackett WW; Johnston WM Oper Dent; 1989; 14(3):136-41. PubMed ID: 2700383 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Retention of complex amalgam restorations using self-threading pins, amalgapins, and Amalgambond. Imbery TA; Hilton TJ; Reagan SE Am J Dent; 1995 Jun; 8(3):117-21. PubMed ID: 8599585 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of distribution of resistance features in complex amalgam restorations. Summitt JB; Rindler EA; Robbins JW; Burgess JO Oper Dent; 1994; 19(2):53-8. PubMed ID: 8008611 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Fracture resistance of four core materials with incorporated pins. Kao EC; Hart S; Johnston WM Int J Prosthodont; 1989; 2(6):569-78. PubMed ID: 2701071 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Retention of pins in amalgam. Cooley RL; Marshall TD; Earnest L Am J Dent; 1991 Feb; 4(1):37-9. PubMed ID: 2003894 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of core diameter and surface treatment on the retention of resin composite cores to prefabricated endodontic posts. Artopoulou II; O'Keefe KL; Powers JM J Prosthodont; 2006; 15(3):172-9. PubMed ID: 16681499 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Fracture resistance of five pin-retained core build-up materials on teeth with and without extracoronal preparation. Burke FJ; Shaglouf AG; Combe EC; Wilson NH Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 11203847 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The retention of amalgam and composite resin by a smooth, reverse-tapered pin. Brackett WW; Bailey JH Oper Dent; 1992; 17(4):152-5. PubMed ID: 1287596 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. In vitro tensile bond strength of adhesive cements to new post materials. O'Keefe KL; Miller BH; Powers JM Int J Prosthodont; 2000; 13(1):47-51. PubMed ID: 11203608 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Early fracture resistance of amalgapin-retained complex amalgam restorations. Schulte GA; Hermesch CB; Vandewalle KS; Buikema DJ Oper Dent; 1998; 23(3):108-12. PubMed ID: 9656920 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Load fatigue of five restoration modalities in structurally compromised premolars. Fan P; Nicholls JI; Kois JC Int J Prosthodont; 1995; 8(3):213-20. PubMed ID: 10348588 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Adhesion of a new light-polymerized denture base resin to resin teeth and denture base materials. Hayakawa I; Hirano S; Nagao M; Matsumoto T; Masuhara E Int J Prosthodont; 1991; 4(6):561-8. PubMed ID: 1817529 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The effects of three types of pins on the tensile strength of dental amalgam. Duperon DF; Kasloff Z J Can Dent Assoc (Tor); 1973 Feb; 39(2):111-9. PubMed ID: 4510580 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Strength of amalgam restorations bonded with Amalgambond. Ianzano JA; Mastrodomenico J; Gwinnett AJ Am J Dent; 1993 Feb; 6(1):10-2. PubMed ID: 8329154 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]