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 *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1814348)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Shear bond strength of composite resin and amalgam adhesive systems to dentin.
    Evans DB; Neme AM
    Am J Dent; 1999 Feb; 12(1):19-25. PubMed ID: 10477994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Effect of grooves on resistance form of Class 2 amalgams with wide occlusal preparations.
    Summitt JB; Osborne JW; Burgess JO; Howell ML
    Oper Dent; 1993; 18(2):42-7. PubMed ID: 8337180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Cuspal deflection of maxillary premolars restored with bonded amalgam.
    el-Badrawy WA
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(6):337-43. PubMed ID: 10823082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Fluoride-releasing resin bonding of amalgam restorations in primary teeth: in vitro secondary caries effect.
    Hicks J; Milano M; Seybold S; García-Godoy F; Flaitz C
    Am J Dent; 2002 Dec; 15(6):361-4. PubMed ID: 12691270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Reinforcement effect of polyethylene fibre in root-filled teeth: comparison of two restoration techniques.
    Belli S; Erdemir A; Yildirim C
    Int Endod J; 2006 Feb; 39(2):136-42. PubMed ID: 16454794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations: effect of thermal cycling.
    Helvatjoglou-Antoniades M; Theodoridou-Pahini S; Papadogiannis Y; Karezis A
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):316-23. PubMed ID: 11203837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. The effect of cross-sectional area on transverse strength of Amalgapin-retained restorations.
    Certosimo AJ; House RC; Anderson MH
    Oper Dent; 1991; 16(2):70-6. PubMed ID: 1803331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Resistance of three new esthetic post-and-core systems to compressive loading.
    Dilmener FT; Sipahi C; Dalkiz M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Feb; 95(2):130-6. PubMed ID: 16473087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Proximal Contact Repair of Complex Amalgam Restorations.
    Zguri MN; Casey JA; Jessup JP; Vandewalle KS
    Oper Dent; 2017; 42(3):266-272. PubMed ID: 28080293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Fracture resistance of anterior teeth restored with a novel nonmetallic post.
    Abo El-Ela OA; Atta OA; El-Mowafy O
    J Can Dent Assoc; 2008 Jun; 74(5):441. PubMed ID: 18538068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.