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 *

198 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1882038)

  • 1. Quantitative in vivo evaluation of four restorative concepts for mixed Class V restorations.
    Krejci I; Lutz F; Loher CE
    Quintessence Int; 1991 Jun; 22(6):455-65. PubMed ID: 1882038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Marginal adaptation of composite restorations versus hybrid ionomer/composite sandwich restorations.
    Friedl KH; Schmalz G; Hiller KA; Mortazavi F
    Oper Dent; 1997; 22(1):21-9. PubMed ID: 9227124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Marginal adaptation of Class V restorations using different restorative techniques.
    Krejci I; Lutz F
    J Dent; 1991 Feb; 19(1):24-32. PubMed ID: 1901872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Marginal morphology of Class V composite restorations.
    Prati C; Chersoni S; Cretti L; Mongiorgi R
    Am J Dent; 1997 Oct; 10(5):231-6. PubMed ID: 9522697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Influence of the restorative technique and new adhesives on the dentin marginal seal and adaptation of resin composite Class II restorations: an in vitro evaluation.
    Dietschi D; De Siebenthal G; Neveu-Rosenstand L; Holz J
    Quintessence Int; 1995 Oct; 26(10):717-27. PubMed ID: 8935115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Microleakage of Class II silver glass ionomer/composite restorations.
    Stratmann RG; Donly KJ
    Am J Dent; 1991 Apr; 4(2):95-8. PubMed ID: 1906718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. In vivo evaluation of glass-ionomer cement adhesion to dentin.
    Mason PN; Ferrari M
    Quintessence Int; 1994 Jul; 25(7):499-504. PubMed ID: 7991772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Marginal adaption of Class V restorations with and without "softstart-polymerization".
    Friedl KH; Schmalz G; Hiller KA; Märkl A
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(1):26-32. PubMed ID: 11203787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Laboratory evaluation of compomers in Class V restorations.
    Chersoni S; Lorenzi R; Ferrieri P; Prati C
    Am J Dent; 1997 Jun; 10(3):147-51. PubMed ID: 9545890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Marginal leakage of combinations of glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations.
    Sarne S; Mante MO; Mante FK
    J Clin Dent; 1996; 7(1):13-6. PubMed ID: 9238879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The use of liners under amalgam restorations: an in vitro study on marginal leakage.
    Marchiori S; Baratieri LN; de Andrada MA; Monteiro Júnior S; Ritter AV
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Oct; 29(10):637-42. PubMed ID: 9922761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Dentinal adhesives and glass ionomer cements: which are the best?].
    Prati C; Montanari G
    Minerva Stomatol; 1989 Oct; 38(10):1065-9. PubMed ID: 2615731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An in-vitro investigation of microleakage and gap size of glass ionomer/composite resin "sandwich" restorations in primary teeth.
    Reid JS; Saunders WP; Sharkey SW; Williams CE
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1994; 61(4):255-9. PubMed ID: 7989627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Self-etching primer vs phosphoric acid: an alternative concept for composite-to-enamel bonding.
    Hannig M; Reinhardt KJ; Bott B
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(3):172-80. PubMed ID: 10530279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. In vitro marginal leakage of Class II composite resin restorations by thermal cycling.
    Futatsuki M; Nakata M
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1994; 18(3):191-6. PubMed ID: 8054304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Microleakage of Gluma Bond, Scotchbond 2 and a glass ionomer/composite sandwich technique.
    Reeves GW; Fitchie JG; Scarbrough AR; Hembree JH
    Am J Dent; 1990 Oct; 3(5):195-8. PubMed ID: 2127533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparative quantitative and qualitative assessment of the marginal adaptation and apposition of bonded amalgam restorations using luting glass ionomer and 4-META adhesive liner under a scanning electron microscope. An in vitro study.
    Abraham MM; Sudeep PT; Bhat KS
    Indian J Dent Res; 1999; 10(2):43-53. PubMed ID: 10865391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Microleakage of Class V restorations using two different compomer systems: an in vitro study.
    Estafan D; Pines MS; Erakin C; Fuerst PF
    J Clin Dent; 1999; 10(4):124-6. PubMed ID: 10825860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Enamel-dentinal adhesives in amalgam restorations].
    Anderlini G; Calandriello R
    Dent Cadmos; 1989 Apr; 57(6):72-8, 81. PubMed ID: 2636183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. SEM and microleakage evaluation of the marginal integrity of two types of class V restorations with or without the use of a light-curable coating material and of polishing.
    Magni E; Zhang L; Hickel R; Bossù M; Polimeni A; Ferrari M
    J Dent; 2008 Nov; 36(11):885-91. PubMed ID: 18757129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.