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 *

430 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1840079)

  • 1. Long-term deterioration of composite resin and amalgam restorations.
    Smales RJ
    Oper Dent; 1991; 16(6):202-9. PubMed ID: 1840079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of enamel-bonding, type of restoration, patient age and operator on the longevity of an anterior composite resin.
    Smales RJ
    Am J Dent; 1991 Jun; 4(3):130-3. PubMed ID: 1830747
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Ten-year clinical assessment of three posterior resin composites and two amalgams.
    Mair LH
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Aug; 29(8):483-90. PubMed ID: 9807127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Composite resin-amalgam compound restorations.
    Franchi M; Trisi P; Montanari G; Piattelli A
    Quintessence Int; 1994 Aug; 25(8):577-82. PubMed ID: 7568708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of retentiveness of amalgam bonding agent types.
    Winkler MM; Moore BK; Allen J; Rhodes B
    Oper Dent; 1997; 22(5):200-8. PubMed ID: 9484142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations.
    Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Roeters JM; Loomans BA
    Dent Mater; 2007 Jan; 23(1):2-8. PubMed ID: 16417916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Combined amalgam and composite restorations.
    Abu-Hanna AA; Mjör IA
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(3):342-4. PubMed ID: 15195736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Clinical performance of posterior composite resin restorations.
    Johnson GH; Bales DJ; Gordon GE; Powell LV
    Quintessence Int; 1992 Oct; 23(10):705-11. PubMed ID: 1289954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Effects of surface treatment on orthodontic bonding to amalgam.
    Skilton JW; Tyas MJ; Woods MG
    Aust Orthod J; 2006 May; 22(1):59-66. PubMed ID: 16792246
    [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. Longevity of conventional and bonded (sealed) amalgam restorations in a private general dental practice.
    Bonsor SJ; Chadwick RG
    Br Dent J; 2009 Jan; 206(2):E3; discussion 88-9. PubMed ID: 19148188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Class II composite resin restorations: a three-year clinical study of six different posterior composites.
    Lundin SA; Andersson B; Koch G; Rasmusson CG
    Swed Dent J; 1990; 14(3):105-14. PubMed ID: 2255989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Restoration deterioration related to later failure.
    Smales RJ; Webster DA
    Oper Dent; 1993; 18(4):130-7. PubMed ID: 8152980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Esthetic veneering of amalgam restorations with composite resin--combining the best of both worlds?
    Plasmans PJ; Reukers EA
    Oper Dent; 1993; 18(2):66-71. PubMed ID: 8337184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings.
    da Rosa Rodolpho PA; Cenci MS; Donassollo TA; Loguércio AD; Demarco FF
    J Dent; 2006 Aug; 34(7):427-35. PubMed ID: 16314023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.