608 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19040441)
41. Marginal adaptation of 1 fiber-reinforced composite and 2 all-ceramic inlay fixed partial denture systems.
Monaco C; Krejci I; Bortolotto T; Perakis N; Ferrari M; Scotti R
Int J Prosthodont; 2006; 19(4):373-82. PubMed ID: 16900821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Maintenance requirements of implant-supported fixed prostheses opposed by implant-supported fixed prostheses, natural teeth, or complete dentures: a 5-year retrospective study.
Davis DM; Packer ME; Watson RM
Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(5):521-3. PubMed ID: 14651238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Cement thickness at implant-supported single-tooth Lava assemblies: a scanning electron microscopic investigation.
Apicella D; Veltri M; Chieffi N; Balleri P; Ferrari M
Clin Oral Implants Res; 2010 Jul; 21(7):747-50. PubMed ID: 20636729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Survival and complication rates of combined tooth-implant-supported fixed and removable partial dentures.
Nickenig HJ; Spiekermann H; Wichmann M; Andreas SK; Eitner S
Int J Prosthodont; 2008; 21(2):131-7. PubMed ID: 18546767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Retention forces and seating discrepancies of implant-retained castings after cementation.
Wolfart M; Wolfart S; Kern M
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2006; 21(4):519-25. PubMed ID: 16955601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Clinical performance of a bioactive dental luting cement--a prospective clinical pilot study.
Jefferies SR; Appleby D; Boston D; Pameijer CH; Lööf J
J Clin Dent; 2009; 20(7):231-7. PubMed ID: 20128321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Scanning electron microscope evaluation of vertical and horizontal discrepancy in cast copings for single-tooth implant-supported prostheses.
Siadat H; Alikhasi M; Mirfazaelian A; Zade MM
Implant Dent; 2008 Sep; 17(3):299-308. PubMed ID: 18784530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Fit of implant-supported fixed prostheses fabricated on master casts made from a dental stone and a dental plaster.
Wise M
J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Nov; 86(5):532-8. PubMed ID: 11725282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Fracture strength and failure mode of five different single-tooth implant-abutment combinations.
Strub JR; Gerds T
Int J Prosthodont; 2003; 16(2):167-71. PubMed ID: 12737249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Cyclic loading of implant-supported prostheses: comparison of gaps at the prosthetic-abutment interface when cycled abutments are replaced with as-manufactured abutments.
Hecker DM; Eckert SE; Choi YG
J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Jan; 95(1):26-32. PubMed ID: 16399272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw- or cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs.
Guichet DL; Caputo AA; Choi H; Sorensen JA
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2000; 15(2):239-46. PubMed ID: 10795456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Effect of engaging abutment position in implant-borne, screw-retained three-unit fixed cantilevered prostheses.
Dogus SM; Kurtz KS; Watanabe I; Griggs JA
J Prosthodont; 2011 Jul; 20(5):348-54. PubMed ID: 21585587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. In vitro investigation of marginal accuracy of implant-supported screw-retained partial dentures.
Koke U; Wolf A; Lenz P; Gilde H
J Oral Rehabil; 2004 May; 31(5):477-82. PubMed ID: 15140174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures.
Michalakis KX; Pissiotis AL; Hirayama H
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2000; 15(4):545-9. PubMed ID: 10960988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Patient evaluation of treatment with fixed prostheses supported by implants or a combination of teeth and implants.
Kronström M; Trulsson M; Söderfeldt B
J Prosthodont; 2004 Sep; 13(3):160-5. PubMed ID: 15345015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Effects of a cementing technique in addition to luting agent on the uniaxial retention force of a single-tooth implant-supported restoration: an in vitro study.
Santosa RE; Martin W; Morton D
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2010; 25(6):1145-52. PubMed ID: 21197491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Influence of prosthesis fit and the effect of a luting system on the prosthetic connection preload: an in vitro study.
Duyck J; Naert I
Int J Prosthodont; 2002; 15(4):389-96. PubMed ID: 12170855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis.
Del'Acqua MA; Arioli-Filho JN; Compagnoni MA; Mollo Fde A
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2008; 23(2):226-36. PubMed ID: 18548918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Microleakage of ceramic inlays luted with different resin cements and dentin adhesives.
Uludag B; Ozturk O; Ozturk AN
J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Oct; 102(4):235-41. PubMed ID: 19782826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Retention of gold alloy crowns cemented with traditional and resin cements.
Pinzón LM; Frey GN; Winkler MM; Tate WH; Burgess JO; Powers JM
Int J Prosthodont; 2009; 22(4):351-3. PubMed ID: 19639070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
