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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18792702)

  • 21. A clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays bonded with different luting agents.
    Gemalmaz D; Ozcan M; Alkumru HN
    J Adhes Dent; 2001; 3(3):273-83. PubMed ID: 11803715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Dentin bond strength and marginal adaptation: direct composite resins vs ceramic inlays.
    Frankenberger R; Sindel J; Krämer N; Petschelt A
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(3):147-55. PubMed ID: 10530276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Influence of tissue characteristics at margins on leakage of Class II indirect porcelain restorations.
    Ferrari M; Mason PN; Fabianelli A; Cagidiaco MC; Kugel G; Davidson CL
    Am J Dent; 1999 Jun; 12(3):134-42. PubMed ID: 10649936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Two-year clinical evaluation of IPS Empress II ceramic onlays/inlays.
    Tagtekin DA; Ozyöney G; Yanikoglu F
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(4):369-78. PubMed ID: 19678440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Six-year clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays.
    Galiatsatos AA; Bergou D
    Quintessence Int; 2008 May; 39(5):407-12. PubMed ID: 19088955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Resin-modified glass ionomers for luting posterior ceramic restorations.
    Thonemann B; Federlin M; Schmalz G; Hiller KA
    Dent Mater; 1995 May; 11(3):161-8. PubMed ID: 8600007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Effect of Cements at Different Temperatures on the Clinical Performance and Marginal Adaptation of Inlay-Onlay Restorations In Vivo.
    Aygün Emiroğlu Ş; Evren B; Kulak Özkan Y
    J Prosthodont; 2016 Jun; 25(4):302-9. PubMed ID: 26215702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement and self-cured resin composite luted ceramic inlays. A 5-year clinical evaluation.
    van Dijken JW
    Dent Mater; 2003 Nov; 19(7):670-4. PubMed ID: 12901993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength and adhesion of composite resin versus ceramic inlays in molars.
    Dejak B; Mlotkowski A
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):131-40. PubMed ID: 18262014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Interface gap size of manually and CAD/CAM-manufactured ceramic inlays/onlays in vitro.
    Addi S; Hedayati-Khams A; Poya A; Sjögren G
    J Dent; 2002 Jan; 30(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 11741736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. IPS Empress onlays luted with two dual-cured resin cements for endodontically treated teeth: a 3-year clinical evaluation.
    Atali PY; Cakmakcioglu O; Topbasi B; Turkmen C; Suslen O
    Int J Prosthodont; 2011; 24(1):40-2. PubMed ID: 21210001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Marginal integrity of ceramic inlays luted with a self-curing resin system.
    Ferrari M; Dagostin A; Fabianelli A
    Dent Mater; 2003 Jun; 19(4):270-6. PubMed ID: 12686290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Clinical performance of pressed ceramic inlays luted with resin-modified glass ionomer and autopolymerizing resin composite cements.
    van Dijken JW; Ormin A; Olofsson AL
    J Prosthet Dent; 1999 Nov; 82(5):529-35. PubMed ID: 10559724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays made with two systems: a one-year follow-up.
    Santos MJ; Mondelli RF; Francischone CE; Lauris JR; de Lima NM
    J Adhes Dent; 2004; 6(4):333-8. PubMed ID: 15779320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up.
    van Dijken JW
    J Dent; 2000 Jul; 28(5):299-306. PubMed ID: 10785294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Microleakage of IPS empress 2 inlay restorations luted with self-adhesive resin cements.
    Cal E; Celik EU; Turkun M
    Oper Dent; 2012; 37(4):417-24. PubMed ID: 22360365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Eight-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays.
    Hayashi M; Tsuchitani Y; Kawamura Y; Miura M; Takeshige F; Ebisu S
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):473-81. PubMed ID: 11203859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Marginal leakage in class II-restorations after use of ceramic-inserts luted with different materials.
    Hahn P; Schaller HG; Müllner U; Hellwig E
    J Oral Rehabil; 1998 Aug; 25(8):567-74. PubMed ID: 9781859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. In vitro evaluation of fit of adhesively luted ceramic inlays.
    Audenino G; Bresciano ME; Bassi F; Carossa S
    Int J Prosthodont; 1999; 12(4):342-7. PubMed ID: 10635204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. In vitro wear simulation measurements of composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer luting cements for all-ceramic restorations.
    Braga RR; Condon JR; Ferracane JL
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2002; 14(6):368-76. PubMed ID: 12542102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.