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 *

204 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1814768)

  • 1. A two-year clinical study of light-cured composite and amalgam restorations in primary molars.
    Barr-Agholme M; Odén A; Dahllöf G; Modeér T
    Dent Mater; 1991 Oct; 7(4):230-3. PubMed ID: 1814768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Class II restorations with a polyacid-modified composite resin in primary molars placed in a dental practice: results of a two-year clinical evaluation.
    Attin T; Opatowski A; Meyer C; Zingg-Meyer B; Mönting JS
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):259-64. PubMed ID: 11203828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical aspects of restorative treatment in the primary dentition.
    Varpio M
    Swed Dent J Suppl; 1993; 96():1-47. PubMed ID: 8310420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite.
    Attin T; Opatowski A; Meyer C; Zingg-Meyer B; Buchalla W; Mönting JS
    Am J Dent; 2001 Jun; 14(3):148-52. PubMed ID: 11572292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Silver amalgam versus resin modified GIC class-II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical evaluation.
    Dutta BN; Gauba K; Tewari A; Chawla HS
    J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2001 Sep; 19(3):118-22. PubMed ID: 11817797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2001 May; 32(5):391-5. PubMed ID: 11444073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Conservative interproximal box-only polyacid modified composite restorations in primary molars, twelve-month clinical results.
    Marks LA; van Amerongen WE; Kreulen CM; Weerheijm KL; Martens LC
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1999; 66(1):23-9, 12. PubMed ID: 10360200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of Class II combined amalgam-composite restorations in primary molars after 6 to 30 months.
    Holan G; Chosack A; Eidelman E
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1996; 63(5):341-5. PubMed ID: 8958346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Factors influencing dentists' choice of amalgam and tooth-colored restorative materials for Class II preparations in younger patients.
    Vidnes-Kopperud S; Tveit AB; Gaarden T; Sandvik L; Espelid I
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2009; 67(2):74-9. PubMed ID: 19085213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results.
    Pascon FM; Kantovitz KR; Caldo-Teixeira AS; Borges AF; Silva TN; Puppin-Rontani RM; Garcia-Godoy F
    J Dent; 2006 Jul; 34(6):381-8. PubMed ID: 16242232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Microleakage of class 2 Superbond-lined composite restorations with and without a cervical amalgam base.
    Hovav S; Holan G; Lewinstein I; Fuks AB
    Oper Dent; 1995; 20(2):63-7. PubMed ID: 8700773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study.
    Kavvadia K; Kakaboura A; Vanderas AP; Papagiannoulis L
    Pediatr Dent; 2004; 26(3):245-50. PubMed ID: 15185806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The influence of restorative material on the survival rate of restorations in primary molars.
    Papathanasiou AG; Curzon ME; Fairpo CG
    Pediatr Dent; 1994; 16(4):282-8. PubMed ID: 7937261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Survival of self-etch adhesive Class II composite restorations using ART and conventional cavity preparations in primary molars.
    Eden E; Topaloglu-Ak A; Frencken JE; van't Hof M
    Am J Dent; 2006 Dec; 19(6):359-63. PubMed ID: 17212078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Management of extensive carious lesions in permanent molars of a child with nonmetallic bonded restorations--a case report.
    el-Mowafy O
    J Can Dent Assoc; 2000 Jun; 66(6):302-7. PubMed ID: 10927895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Randomized clinical comparison of endodontically treated teeth restored with amalgam or with fiber posts and resin composite: five-year results.
    Mannocci F; Qualtrough AJ; Worthington HV; Watson TF; Pitt Ford TR
    Oper Dent; 2005; 30(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 15765952
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of wear and clinical performance between amalgam, composite and open sandwich restorations: 2-year results.
    Sachdeo A; Gray GB; Sulieman MA; Jagger DC
    Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent; 2004 Mar; 12(1):15-20. PubMed ID: 15058177
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.