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.
128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21210001)
21. Four-year clinical performance and marginal analysis of pressed glass ceramic inlays luted with ormocer restorative vs. conventional luting composite. Krämer N; Reinelt C; Richter G; Frankenberger R J Dent; 2009 Nov; 37(11):813-9. PubMed ID: 19744761 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Three-year clinical follow-up of posterior teeth restored with leucite-reinforced ips empress onlays and partial veneer crowns. Murgueitio R; Bernal G J Prosthodont; 2012 Jul; 21(5):340-5. PubMed ID: 22372380 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Dentin bond strengths of two ceramic inlay systems after cementation with three different techniques and one bonding system. Ozturk N; Aykent F J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Mar; 89(3):275-81. PubMed ID: 12644803 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Three-year clinical evaluation of two ceramic crown systems: a preliminary study. Etman MK; Woolford MJ J Prosthet Dent; 2010 Feb; 103(2):80-90. PubMed ID: 20141812 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays after six years: wear of luting composites. Krämer N; Frankenberger R Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):466-72. PubMed ID: 11203858 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. IPS Empress inlays and onlays after four years--a clinical study. Krämer N; Frankenberger R; Pelka M; Petschelt A J Dent; 1999 Jul; 27(5):325-31. PubMed ID: 10377606 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Quantification of all-ceramic crown margin surface profile from try-in to 1-week post-cementation. Good ML; Mitchell CA; Pintado MR; Douglas WH J Dent; 2009 Jan; 37(1):65-75. PubMed ID: 19013703 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Midterm results of a 5-year prospective clinical investigation of extended ceramic veneers. Guess PC; Stappert CF Dent Mater; 2008 Jun; 24(6):804-13. PubMed ID: 18006051 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Influence of restorative techniques on fracture load of endodontically treated premolars. Bianchi E Silva AA; Ghiggi PC; Mota EG; Borges GA; Burnett LH; Spohr AM Stomatologija; 2013; 15(4):123-8. PubMed ID: 24589635 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparison of marginal integrity of ceramic and composite veneer restorations luted with two different resin agents: an in vitro study. Celik C; Gemalmaz D Int J Prosthodont; 2002; 15(1):59-64. PubMed ID: 11887601 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Five-year evaluation of two resin-retained ceramic systems: a retrospective study in a general practice setting. Arnelund CF; Johansson A; Ericson M; Häger P; Fyrberg KA Int J Prosthodont; 2004; 17(3):302-6. PubMed ID: 15237876 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. The efficacy of glass-ceramic onlays in the restoration of morphologically compromised and endodontically treated molars. Ozyoney G; Yan Koğlu F; Tağtekin D; Hayran O Int J Prosthodont; 2013; 26(3):230-4. PubMed ID: 23626975 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Marginal adaptation of dentin bonded ceramic inlays: effects of bonding systems and luting resin composites. Haller B; Hässner K; Moll K Oper Dent; 2003; 28(5):574-84. PubMed ID: 14531604 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]