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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1882059)

  • 1. Effect of a new resin inlay/onlay restorative material on cuspal reinforcement.
    Lopes LM; Leitao JG; Douglas WH
    Quintessence Int; 1991 Aug; 22(8):641-5. PubMed ID: 1882059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic inlays.
    Hannig C; Westphal C; Becker K; Attin T
    J Prosthet Dent; 2005 Oct; 94(4):342-9. PubMed ID: 16198171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with direct and indirect adhesive techniques.
    Santos MJ; Bezerra RB
    J Can Dent Assoc; 2005 Sep; 71(8):585. PubMed ID: 16202199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The influence of cavity preparation design on fracture strength and mode of fracture of laboratory-processed composite resin restorations.
    Fonseca RB; Fernandes-Neto AJ; Correr-Sobrinho L; Soares CJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2007 Oct; 98(4):277-84. PubMed ID: 17936127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Porcelain versus composite inlays/onlays: effects of mechanical loads on stress distribution, adhesion, and crown flexure.
    Magne P; Belser UC
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2003 Dec; 23(6):543-55. PubMed ID: 14703758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Fracture resistance and microtensile bond strength of maxillary premolars restored with two resin composite inlay systems.
    Sun YS; Chen YM; Smales RJ; Yip KH
    Am J Dent; 2008 Apr; 21(2):97-100. PubMed ID: 18578176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cuspal deflection of maxillary premolars restored with bonded amalgam.
    el-Badrawy WA
    Oper Dent; 1999; 24(6):337-43. PubMed ID: 10823082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect of restoration method on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars.
    Yamada Y; Tsubota Y; Fukushima S
    Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(1):94-8. PubMed ID: 15008239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part II: strain measurement and stress distribution.
    Soares PV; Santos-Filho PC; Gomide HA; Araujo CA; Martins LR; Soares CJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):114-22. PubMed ID: 18262012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Stress distributions in adhesively cemented ceramic and resin-composite Class II inlay restorations: a 3D-FEA study.
    Ausiello P; Rengo S; Davidson CL; Watts DC
    Dent Mater; 2004 Nov; 20(9):862-72. PubMed ID: 15451242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Premolar cuspal flexure as a function of restorative material and occlusal contact location.
    Magne P; Oganesyan T
    Quintessence Int; 2009 May; 40(5):363-70. PubMed ID: 19582240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Fatigue load of teeth restored with bonded direct composite and indirect ceramic inlays in MOD class II cavity preparations.
    Shor A; Nicholls JI; Phillips KM; Libman WJ
    Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(1):64-9. PubMed ID: 12675458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials.
    Dalpino PH; Francischone CE; Ishikiriama A; Franco EB
    Am J Dent; 2002 Dec; 15(6):389-94. PubMed ID: 12691276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Fatigue resistance of teeth restored with cuspal-coverage composite restorations.
    Fennis WM; Kuijs RH; Kreulen CM; Verdonschot N; Creugers NH
    Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(3):313-7. PubMed ID: 15237878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Influence of Preparation Design and Restorative Material on Fatigue and Fracture Strength of Restored Maxillary Premolars.
    Hofsteenge JW; van den Heijkant IA; Cune MS; Bazos PK; van der Made S; Kerdijk W; Gresnigt M
    Oper Dent; 2021 Mar; 46(2):E68-E79. PubMed ID: 34192333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Influence of cavity preparation design on fracture resistance of posterior Leucite-reinforced ceramic restorations.
    Soares CJ; Martins LR; Fonseca RB; Correr-Sobrinho L; Fernandes Neto AJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Jun; 95(6):421-9. PubMed ID: 16765154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Influence of different transitional restorations on the fracture resistance of premolar teeth.
    Qualtrough AJ; Cawte SG; Wilson NH
    Oper Dent; 2001; 26(3):267-72. PubMed ID: 11357569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cuspal deflection, strain and microleakage of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with direct resin composites.
    Taha NA; Palamara JE; Messer HH
    J Dent; 2009 Sep; 37(9):724-30. PubMed ID: 19581032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.