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 *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1918580)

  • 1. The surface roughness of enamel-to-enamel contact areas compared with the intrinsic roughness of dental resin composites.
    Willems G; Lambrechts P; Braem M; Vuylsteke-Wauters M; Vanherle G
    J Dent Res; 1991 Sep; 70(9):1299-305. PubMed ID: 1918580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of a desensitizing paste containing 8% arginine and calcium carbonate on the surface roughness of dental materials and human dental enamel.
    Garcia-Godoy F; Garcia-Godoy A; Garcia-Godoy C
    Am J Dent; 2009 Mar; 22 Spec No A():21A-24A. PubMed ID: 19472558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Erosion and abrasion of tooth-colored restorative materials and human enamel.
    Yu H; Wegehaupt FJ; Wiegand A; Roos M; Attin T; Buchalla W
    J Dent; 2009 Dec; 37(12):913-22. PubMed ID: 19674824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Surface roughness of different dental materials before and after simulated toothbrushing in vitro.
    Heintze SD; Forjanic M
    Oper Dent; 2005; 30(5):617-26. PubMed ID: 16268397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Wear of human enamel opposing monolithic zirconia, glass ceramic, and composite resin: an in vitro study.
    Sripetchdanond J; Leevailoj C
    J Prosthet Dent; 2014 Nov; 112(5):1141-50. PubMed ID: 24980740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. An in vitro comparison of the effects of various air polishing powders on enamel and selected esthetic restorative materials.
    Barnes CM; Covey D; Watanabe H; Simetich B; Schulte JR; Chen H
    J Clin Dent; 2014; 25(4):76-87. PubMed ID: 26054183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. In vitro toothbrushing abrasion of dental resin composites: packable, microhybrid, nanohybrid and microfilled materials.
    Moraes RR; Ribeiro Ddos S; Klumb MM; Brandt WC; Correr-Sobrinho L; Bueno M
    Braz Oral Res; 2008; 22(2):112-8. PubMed ID: 18622479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Surface roughness of enamel and four resin composites.
    Botta AC; Duarte S; Paulin Filho PI; Gheno SM; Powers JM
    Am J Dent; 2009 Oct; 22(5):252-4. PubMed ID: 20225464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of the wear resistance and hardness of indirect composite resins.
    Mandikos MN; McGivney GP; Davis E; Bush PJ; Carter JM
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Apr; 85(4):386-95. PubMed ID: 11319537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing the tooth-restoration interface wear resistance of two cementation techniques: effect of a surface sealant.
    Prakki A; Ribeiro IW; Cilli R; Mondelli RF
    Oper Dent; 2005; 30(6):739-46. PubMed ID: 16382597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Impact of Crest Night Effects bleaching gel on dental enamel, dentin and key restorative materials. In vitro studies.
    White DJ; Kozak KM; Zoladz JR; Duschner HJ; Goetz H
    Am J Dent; 2003 Nov; 16 Spec No():22B-27B. PubMed ID: 15055984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Surface roughness and gloss of current CAD/CAM resin composites before and after toothbrush abrasion.
    Koizumi H; Saiki O; Nogawa H; Hiraba H; Okazaki T; Matsumura H
    Dent Mater J; 2015; 34(6):881-7. PubMed ID: 26632238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Wear resistance and surface roughness of a newly devised adhesive patch for sealing smooth enamel surfaces.
    Schmidlin PR; Göhring TN; Roos M; Zehnder M
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(1):115-21. PubMed ID: 16536202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Simulated oral wear of packable composites.
    Clelland NL; Villarroel SC; Knobloch LA; Seghi RR
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(6):830-7. PubMed ID: 14653301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of the roughness and mass loss of the flowable composites after simulated toothbrushing abrasion.
    Garcia FC; Wang L; D'Alpino PH; Souza JB; Araújo PA; Mondelli RF
    Braz Oral Res; 2004; 18(2):156-61. PubMed ID: 15311320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluating the antagonistic wear of restorative materials when placed against human enamel.
    Suzuki S; Suzuki SH; Cox CF
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1996 Jan; 127(1):74-80. PubMed ID: 8568101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Composite resins in the 21st century.
    Willems G; Lambrechts P; Braem M; Vanherle G
    Quintessence Int; 1993 Sep; 24(9):641-58. PubMed ID: 8272502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The influence of antagonistic surface roughness on the wear of human enamel and nanofilled composite resin artificial teeth.
    Ghazal M; Kern M
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 May; 101(5):342-9. PubMed ID: 19410068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effect of surface treatment on roughness and bond strength of a heat-pressed ceramic.
    Ayad MF; Fahmy NZ; Rosenstiel SF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Feb; 99(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 18262013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of a paste-free prophylaxis polishing cup and various prophylaxis polishing pastes on tooth enamel and restorative materials.
    Covey DA; Barnes C; Watanabe H; Johnson WW
    Gen Dent; 2011; 59(6):466-73; quiz 474-5. PubMed ID: 22313918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.