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 *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1837258)

  • 1. Vertical angulation of the X-ray beam and radiographic diagnosis of secondary caries.
    Tveit AB; Espelid I; Erickson RL; Glasspoole EA
    Community Dent Oral Epidemiol; 1991 Dec; 19(6):333-5. PubMed ID: 1837258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Radiopacity of restorations and detection of secondary caries.
    Espelid I; Tveit AB; Erickson RL; Keck SC; Glasspoole EA
    Dent Mater; 1991 Apr; 7(2):114-7. PubMed ID: 1936639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Diagnostic accuracy of different display types in detection of recurrent caries under restorations by using CBCT.
    Baltacıoĝlu İH; Eren H; Yavuz Y; Kamburoğlu K
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2016; 45(6):20160099. PubMed ID: 27319604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Visibility of artificial buccal recurrent caries under restorations using different radiographic techniques.
    Murat S; Kamburoğlu K; Isayev A; Kurşun S; Yüksel S
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(2):197-207. PubMed ID: 22917443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of lesion size, restorative material, and film speed on the detection of recurrent caries.
    Matteson SR; Phillips C; Kantor ML; Leinedecker T
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1989 Aug; 68(2):232-7. PubMed ID: 2674831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations.
    Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Loomans BA; Huysmans MC
    J Dent Res; 2010 Oct; 89(10):1063-7. PubMed ID: 20660797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Clinical longevity of extensive direct composite restorations in amalgam replacement: up to 3.5 years follow-up.
    Scholtanus JD; Ozcan M
    J Dent; 2014 Nov; 42(11):1404-10. PubMed ID: 24994619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Validity of bite-wings for diagnosis of secondary caries in teeth with occlusal amalgam restorations in vitro.
    Rudolphy MP; van Amerongen JP; Penning C; ten Cate JM
    Caries Res; 1993; 27(4):312-6. PubMed ID: 8402808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An in vitro study on the secondary caries-prevention properties of three restorative materials.
    Lai GY; Zhu LK; Li MY; Wang J
    J Prosthet Dent; 2013 Nov; 110(5):363-8. PubMed ID: 23998624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Factors relating to usage patterns of amalgam and resin composite for posterior restorations--a prospective analysis.
    Khalaf ME; Alomari QD; Omar R
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):785-92. PubMed ID: 24769386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Influence of Image Filters and Variation in Horizontal Angle of Incidence of X-ray Beam in Digital Interproximal Radiographs for Diagnosis of Secondary Caries in Esthetic Restorations.
    Deprá Lde C; Vessoni Iwaki LC; Chicarelli M; Takeshita WM
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2015 Oct; 16(10):805-12. PubMed ID: 26581461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Three-year clinical evaluation of cuspal coverage with combined composite-amalgam in endodontically-treated maxillary premolars.
    Shafiei F; Memarpour M; Doozandeh M
    Oper Dent; 2010; 35(6):599-604. PubMed ID: 21179997
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Amalgam bonding: visualization and clinical implications of adhesive displacement during amalgam condensation.
    Tyler DW; Thurmeier J
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 11203781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Two-body in vitro wear study of some current dental composites and amalgams.
    Hu X; Marquis PM; Shortall AC
    J Prosthet Dent; 1999 Aug; 82(2):214-20. PubMed ID: 10424987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. In vitro evaluation of ICDAS and radiographic examination of occlusal surfaces and their association with treatment decisions.
    Diniz MB; Lima LM; Eckert G; Zandona AG; Cordeiro RC; Pinto LS
    Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):133-42. PubMed ID: 21777096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Anaerobic microflora under Class I and Class II composite and amalgam restorations.
    Splieth C; Bernhardt O; Heinrich A; Bernhardt H; Meyer G
    Quintessence Int; 2003; 34(7):497-503. PubMed ID: 12946067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Differences between reported and actual restored caries lesion depths: results from The Dental PBRN.
    Rindal DB; Gordan VV; Fellows JL; Spurlock NL; Bauer MR; Litaker MS; Gilbert GH
    Tex Dent J; 2014 Jul; 131(7):520-8. PubMed ID: 25265686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure.
    Hickel R; Manhart J
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(1):45-64. PubMed ID: 11317384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.