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 *

409 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19744761)

  • 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. Longevity of ceramic inlays and onlays luted with a solely light-curing composite resin.
    Schulte AG; Vöckler A; Reinhardt R
    J Dent; 2005 May; 33(5):433-42. PubMed ID: 15833400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Evaluation of resin composite materials. Part II: in vivo investigations.
    Krämer N; García-Godoy F; Frankenberger R
    Am J Dent; 2005 Apr; 18(2):75-81. PubMed ID: 15973822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Three-year clinical evaluation of composite and ceramic inlays.
    Manhart J; Chen HY; Neuerer P; Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A; Hickel R
    Am J Dent; 2001 Apr; 14(2):95-9. PubMed ID: 11507807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results.
    Bottenberg P; Alaerts M; Keulemans F
    J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):163-71. PubMed ID: 16963171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays.
    Peumans M; Voet M; De Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Van Ende A; Van Meerbeek B
    Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Apr; 17(3):739-50. PubMed ID: 22707232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Two-year clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive luting agent for ceramic inlays.
    Peumans M; De Munck J; Van Landuyt K; Poitevin A; Lambrechts P; Van Meerbeek B
    J Adhes Dent; 2010 Apr; 12(2):151-61. PubMed ID: 20157666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A 5-year clinical study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays.
    Thordrup M; Isidor F; Hörsted-Bindslev P
    Quintessence Int; 2001 Mar; 32(3):199-205. PubMed ID: 12066659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems.
    Molin MK; Karlsson SL
    Int J Prosthodont; 2000; 13(3):194-200. PubMed ID: 11203631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: 12-year follow-up.
    Santos MJ; Freitas MC; Azevedo LM; Santos GC; Navarro MF; Francischone CE; Mondelli RF
    Clin Oral Investig; 2016 Sep; 20(7):1683-90. PubMed ID: 26662120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Fracture resistance of resin-based composite and ceramic inlays luted to sound human teeth.
    da Silva SB; Hilgert LA; Busato AL
    Am J Dent; 2004 Dec; 17(6):404-6. PubMed ID: 15724750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays.
    Otto T; De Nisco S
    Int J Prosthodont; 2002; 15(2):122-8. PubMed ID: 11951800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Clinical evaluation of indirect resin composite and ceramic onlays over a 24-month period.
    Kaytan B; Onal B; Pamir T; Tezel H
    Gen Dent; 2005; 53(5):329-34. PubMed ID: 16252535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 6-year clinical evaluation of fired ceramic inlays.
    Hayashi M; Tsuchitani Y; Miura M; Takeshige F; Ebisu S
    Oper Dent; 1998; 23(6):318-26. PubMed ID: 9855855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Clinical long-term evaluation and failure characteristics of 1,335 all-ceramic restorations.
    Beier US; Kapferer I; Dumfahrt H
    Int J Prosthodont; 2012; 25(1):70-8. PubMed ID: 22259801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
    Lange RT; Pfeiffer P
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Influence of cement type on the marginal adaptation of all-ceramic MOD inlays.
    Rosentritt M; Behr M; Lang R; Handel G
    Dent Mater; 2004 Jun; 20(5):463-9. PubMed ID: 15081553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Fourteen years clinical evaluation of leucite-reinforced ceramic inlays luted using two different adhesion strategies.
    Taschner M; Stirnweiss A; Frankenberger R; Kramer N; Galler KM; Maier E
    J Dent; 2022 Aug; 123():104210. PubMed ID: 35760206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.