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 *

97 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1817352)

  • 1. A six year follow-up of three dental alloy restorations with different copper contents.
    van Dijken JW
    Swed Dent J; 1991; 15(6):259-64. PubMed ID: 1817352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical evaluation of gallium alloy as a posterior restorative material.
    Navarro MF; Franco EB; Bastos PA; Teixeira LC; Carvalho RM
    Quintessence Int; 1996 May; 27(5):315-20. PubMed ID: 8941813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Clinical evaluation of high-copper amalgams.
    Berry TG; Osborne JS; Summitt JB
    Am J Dent; 1995 Jun; 8(3):122-4. PubMed ID: 8599586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Marginal failure of amalgam. Effect of alloy selection and bite forces.
    Dérand T
    Swed Dent J; 1983; 7(2):65-8. PubMed ID: 6576493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Marginal adaptation and micro-porosity of class II restorations of a high copper amalgam and a palladium-free gallium-based alloy.
    Shaini FJ; Wahab FK; Ellakwa AE; Shortall AC; Fleming GJ; Marquis PM
    J Oral Rehabil; 2006 Dec; 33(12):924-33. PubMed ID: 17168935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of pulp protection technique on the clinical performance of amalgam restorations: three-year results.
    Baratieri LN; Machado A; Van Noort R; Ritter AV; Baratieri NM
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(4):319-24. PubMed ID: 12120767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations.
    Krämer N; García-Godoy F; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2005 Apr; 18(2):75-81. PubMed ID: 15973822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Clinical assessments of dental amalgam restorations.
    Mahler DB; Marantz RL
    Int Dent J; 1980 Dec; 30(4):327-34. PubMed ID: 6935163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Direct-placement gallium restorative alloy: a 3-year clinical evaluation.
    Osborne JW; Summitt JB
    Quintessence Int; 1999 Jan; 30(1):49-53. PubMed ID: 10323158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Reasons for replacement of Class II amalgam restorations in private practice.
    Allander L; Birkhed D; Bratthall D
    Swed Dent J; 1990; 14(4):179-84. PubMed ID: 2255996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of surface treatment on marginal integrity of amalgam restorations (in vitro study).
    Kamel FM
    Egypt Dent J; 1995 Jul; 41(3):1313-20. PubMed ID: 9497675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Review of bonded amalgam restorations, and assessment in a general practice over five years.
    Smales RJ; Wetherell JD
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):374-81. PubMed ID: 11203845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities.
    Lindberg A; van Dijken JW; Lindberg M
    J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):124-9. PubMed ID: 16956709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Preventive resin restorations vs. amalgam restorations: a three-year clinical study.
    Cloyd S; Gilpatrick RO; Moore D
    J Tenn Dent Assoc; 1997 Oct; 77(4):36-40. PubMed ID: 9520761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A 3-year longitudinal, controlled clinical study of a gallium-based restorative material.
    Dunne SM; Abraham R; Pankhurst CL
    Br Dent J; 2005 Mar; 198(6):355-9; discussion 348. PubMed ID: 15789103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of atraumatic restorative treatment and conventional cavity preparations for glass-ionomer restorations in primary molars: one-year results.
    Yip HK; Smales RJ; Yu C; Gao XJ; Deng DM
    Quintessence Int; 2002 Jan; 33(1):17-21. PubMed ID: 11887531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Corrosion sealing of amalgam restorations in vitro.
    Mahler DB; Pham BV; Adey JD
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):312-20. PubMed ID: 19544821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings.
    Demarco FF; Cenci MS; Lima FG; Donassollo TA; André Dde A; Leida FL
    J Dent; 2007 Mar; 35(3):231-7. PubMed ID: 17034926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.