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.
8. IPS Empress inlays luted with a self-adhesive resin cement after 1 year. Taschner M; Frankenberger R; García-Godoy F; Rosenbusch S; Petschelt A; Krämer N Am J Dent; 2009 Feb; 22(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 19281114 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical performance of bonded leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after eight years. Krämer N; Frankenberger R Dent Mater; 2005 Mar; 21(3):262-71. PubMed ID: 15705433 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays. Peumans M; Voet M; De Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Van Ende A; Van Meerbeek B Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Apr; 17(3):739-50. PubMed ID: 22707232 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays luted with self-adhesive resin cement: a 2-year in vivo study. Taschner M; Krämer N; Lohbauer U; Pelka M; Breschi L; Petschelt A; Frankenberger R Dent Mater; 2012 May; 28(5):535-40. PubMed ID: 22236770 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Two-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays. Peumans M; De Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Poitevin A; Lambrechts P; Van Meerbeek B J Adhes Dent; 2010 Apr; 12(2):151-61. PubMed ID: 20157666 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Luting of ceramic inlays in vitro: marginal quality of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives versus self-etch cements. Frankenberger R; Lohbauer U; Schaible RB; Nikolaenko SA; Naumann M Dent Mater; 2008 Feb; 24(2):185-91. PubMed ID: 17544101 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: five-year follow-up. Santos MJ; Mondelli RF; Navarro MF; Francischone CE; Rubo JH; Santos GC Oper Dent; 2013; 38(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 22856680 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years. Frankenberger R; Taschner M; Garcia-Godoy F; Petschelt A; Krämer N J Adhes Dent; 2008 Oct; 10(5):393-8. PubMed ID: 19058686 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: two-year clinical follow up. Coelho Santos MJ; Mondelli RF; Lauris JR; Navarro MF Oper Dent; 2004; 29(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 15088722 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays after six years: wear of luting composites. Krämer N; Frankenberger R Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):466-72. PubMed ID: 11203858 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. Krämer N; Lohbauer U; Frankenberger R Am J Dent; 2000 Nov; 13(Spec No):60D-76D. PubMed ID: 11763920 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after six years: clinical behavior. Frankenberger R; Petschelt A; Krämer N Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):459-65. PubMed ID: 11203857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Chairside vs. labside ceramic inlays: effect of temporary restoration and adhesive luting on enamel cracks and marginal integrity. Frankenberger R; Krämer N; Appelt A; Lohbauer U; Naumann M; Roggendorf MJ Dent Mater; 2011 Sep; 27(9):892-8. PubMed ID: 21708404 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]