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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2094870)

  • 1. Fracture strength of Class I versus Class II restored premolars tested at the marginal ridge. 2. Cavosurface bonding and cavosurface plus internal enamel bonding.
    Purk JH; Eick JD; Roberts M; Chappell RP; Moore DL
    Quintessence Int; 1990 Aug; 21(8):655-62. PubMed ID: 2094870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Fracture strength of Class I versus Class II restored premolars tested at the marginal ridge. I. Standard preparations.
    Purk JH; Eick JD; DeSchepper EJ; Chappell RP; Tira DE
    Quintessence Int; 1990 Jul; 21(7):545-51. PubMed ID: 2094853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in small to moderate-sized Class II preparations of conventional design.
    Duncalf WV; Wilson NH
    Quintessence Int; 2000 May; 31(5):347-52. PubMed ID: 11203946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Bonded amalgam restorations: using a glass-ionomer as an adhesive liner.
    Chen RS; Liu CC; Cheng MR; Lin CP
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):411-7. PubMed ID: 11203849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Influence of bonded amalgam restorations on the fracture strength of teeth.
    Oliveira JP; Cochran MA; Moore BK
    Oper Dent; 1996; 21(3):110-5. PubMed ID: 9002870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Compressive fracture resistance of the marginal ridge in large Class II tunnels restored with cermet and composite resin.
    Ehrnford LE; Fransson H
    Swed Dent J; 1994; 18(5):207-11. PubMed ID: 7871480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Effect of bonded restorations on the fracture resistance of root filled teeth.
    Sagsen B; Aslan B
    Int Endod J; 2006 Nov; 39(11):900-4. PubMed ID: 17014529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode.
    Soares PV; Santos-Filho PC; Martins LR; Soares CJ
    J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Jan; 99(1):30-7. PubMed ID: 18182183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Resistance to maxillary premolar fractures after restoration of class II preparations with resin composite or ceromer.
    de Freitas CR; Miranda MI; de Andrade MF; Flores VH; Vaz LG; Guimarães C
    Quintessence Int; 2002 Sep; 33(8):589-94. PubMed ID: 12238690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Marginal ridge strength of Class II tunnel restorations.
    Purk JH; Roberts RS; Elledge DA; Chappell RP; Eick JD
    Am J Dent; 1995 Apr; 8(2):75-9. PubMed ID: 7546482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Replacement of resin-based composite: evaluation of cavity design, cavity depth, and shade matching.
    Gordan VV; Mondragon E; Shen C
    Quintessence Int; 2002 Apr; 33(4):273-8. PubMed ID: 11989376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer.
    Payne JH
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1999; 23(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 10204453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Class II composite marginal ridge failure: conventional vs. proximal box only preparation.
    Castillo MD
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1999; 23(2):131-6. PubMed ID: 10204454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Fracture strength of cusp replacing resin composite restorations.
    Kuijs RH; Fennis WM; Kreulen CM; Roeters JJ; Burgersdijk RC
    Am J Dent; 2003 Feb; 16(1):13-6. PubMed ID: 12744406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of restoration size on fracture resistance of bonded amalgam restorations.
    Lindemuth JS; Hagge MS; Broome JS
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(3):177-81. PubMed ID: 11203813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.