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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1827842)

  • 21. Shear bond strength of five porcelain repair systems on cerec porcelain.
    van der Vyver PJ; de Wet FA; Botha SJ
    SADJ; 2005 Jun; 60(5):196-8, 200; quiz 216, 218. PubMed ID: 16052752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations: comparison of microleakage and bond strength results.
    Neme AL; Evans DB; Maxson BB
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):512-9. PubMed ID: 11203864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A comparison of three different methods for the quantification of the in vitro wear of dental materials.
    Heintze SD; Cavalleri A; Forjanic M; Zellweger G; Rousson V
    Dent Mater; 2006 Nov; 22(11):1051-62. PubMed ID: 16386293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Influence of abrasive particle size and contact stress on the wear rate of dental restorative materials.
    Harrison A; Moores GE
    Dent Mater; 1985 Feb; 1(1):14-8. PubMed ID: 3160626
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of laboratory procedures and thermocycling on the shear bond strength of resin-metal bonding systems.
    Kim JY; Pfeiffer P; Niedermeier W
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Aug; 90(2):184-9. PubMed ID: 12886212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Monomer priming of denture teeth and its effects on the bond strength of composite resin.
    Perea L; Matinlinna JP; Tolvanen M; Lassila LV; Vallittu PK
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Aug; 112(2):257-66. PubMed ID: 24787127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Does the wear resistance of packable composite equal that of dental amalgam?
    Suzuki S
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2004; 16(6):355-65; discussion 365-7. PubMed ID: 15801341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The effect of a leucite-containing ceramic filler on the abrasive wear of dental composites.
    Atai M; Yassini E; Amini M; Watts DC
    Dent Mater; 2007 Sep; 23(9):1181-7. PubMed ID: 17507087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Metal surface treatment: characterization and effect on composite-to-metal bond strength.
    Cobb DS; Vargas MA; Fridrich TA; Bouschlicher MR
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):427-33. PubMed ID: 11203852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. An overview of treatment considerations for esthetic restorations: a review of the literature.
    Sadowsky SJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Dec; 96(6):433-42. PubMed ID: 17174661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Artefacts caused by dental filling materials in MR imaging.
    Vikhoff B; Ribbelin S; Köhler B; Ekholm S; Borrman H
    Acta Radiol; 1995 May; 36(3):323-5. PubMed ID: 7742131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The effects of lubrication on the temperature rise and surface finish of amalgam and composite resin.
    Jones CS; Billington RW; Pearson GJ
    J Dent; 2007 Jan; 35(1):36-42. PubMed ID: 16781042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effects of a paste-free prophylaxis polishing cup and various prophylaxis polishing pastes on tooth enamel and restorative materials.
    Covey DA; Barnes C; Watanabe H; Johnson WW
    Gen Dent; 2011; 59(6):466-73; quiz 474-5. PubMed ID: 22313918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effect of a hydraulic jet prophylaxis system on composites.
    Reel DC; Abrams H; Gardner SL; Mitchell RJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 1989 Apr; 61(4):441-5. PubMed ID: 2542536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The continued in vivo evaluation of the wear of restorative resins.
    Mitchem JC; Gronas DG
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1985 Dec; 111(6):961-4. PubMed ID: 2933440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Microleakage at the resin-alloy interface of chemically retained composite resins for cast restorations.
    Strygler H; Nicholls JI; Townsend JD
    J Prosthet Dent; 1991 Jun; 65(6):733-9. PubMed ID: 1712849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. In vitro two-body wear of inlay-onlay composite resin restoratives.
    Burgoyne AR; Nicholls JI; Brudvik JS
    J Prosthet Dent; 1991 Feb; 65(2):206-14. PubMed ID: 2051355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Surface roughness analysis of four restorative materials exposed to 10% and 15% carbamide peroxide.
    Zavanelli AC; Mazaro VQ; Silva CR; Zavanelli RA; Mancuso DN
    Int J Prosthodont; 2011; 24(2):155-7. PubMed ID: 21479284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to various esthetic pontic materials.
    Maryanchik I; Brendlinger EJ; Fallis DW; Vandewalle KS
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2010 May; 137(5):684-9. PubMed ID: 20451789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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