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 *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2141338)

  • 21. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations: comparison of microleakage and bond strength results.
    Neme AL; Evans DB; Maxson BB
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):512-9. PubMed ID: 11203864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Influence of the restorative technique and new adhesives on the dentin marginal seal and adaptation of resin composite Class II restorations: an in vitro evaluation.
    Dietschi D; De Siebenthal G; Neveu-Rosenstand L; Holz J
    Quintessence Int; 1995 Oct; 26(10):717-27. PubMed ID: 8935115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Clinical comparison of Class V resin composite and glass ionomer restorations.
    Powell LV; Gordon GE; Johnson GH
    Am J Dent; 1992 Oct; 5(5):249-52. PubMed ID: 1299249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Effect of a filled adhesive on bond strength in three dentinal bonding systems.
    Fanning DE; Wakefield CW; Robbins JW; Bagley AL
    Gen Dent; 1995; 43(3):256-62. PubMed ID: 8940582
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Sensitivity restored of Class V abrasion/erosion lesions.
    Powell LV; Gordon GE; Johnson GH
    J Am Dent Assoc; 1990 Dec; 121(6):694-6. PubMed ID: 2148943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The effect of incremental versus bulk fill techniques on the microleakage of composite resin using a glass-ionomer liner.
    Puckett A; Fitchie J; Hembree J; Smith J
    Oper Dent; 1992; 17(5):186-91. PubMed ID: 1289865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial of conventional and heavy flowable composites in class II restorations.
    Rocha Gomes Torres C; Rêgo HM; Perote LC; Santos LF; Kamozaki MB; Gutierrez NC; Di Nicoló R; Borges AB
    J Dent; 2014 Jul; 42(7):793-9. PubMed ID: 24769385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Marginal adaption of Class V restorations with and without "softstart-polymerization".
    Friedl KH; Schmalz G; Hiller KA; Märkl A
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(1):26-32. PubMed ID: 11203787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Franco EB; Benetti AR; Ishikiriama SK; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Jorge MF; Navarro MF
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):403-8. PubMed ID: 16924979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Microleakage in conventional and bonded amalgam restorations: influence of cavity volume.
    da Silva AF; Piva E; Demarco FF; Correr Sobrinho L; Osinga PW
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(3):377-83. PubMed ID: 16802647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. One-year clinical evaluation of two resin composites, two polymerization methods, and a resin-modified glass ionomer in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Koubi S; Raskin A; Bukiet F; Pignoly C; Toca E; Tassery H
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2006 Nov; 7(5):42-53. PubMed ID: 17091139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Marginal adaptation and microtensile bond strength of composite indirect restorations bonded to dentin treated with adhesive and low-viscosity composite.
    de Andrade OS; de Goes MF; Montes MA
    Dent Mater; 2007 Mar; 23(3):279-87. PubMed ID: 16546249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Effects of total and selective bonding on marginal adaptation and microleakage of Class I resin composite restorations in vitro.
    Schmidlin PR; Huber T; Göhring TN; Attin T; Bindl A
    Oper Dent; 2008; 33(6):629-35. PubMed ID: 19051855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations.
    Brackett MG; Dib A; Brackett WW; Estrada BE; Reyes AA
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(2):112-6. PubMed ID: 11931132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Dentine bond strength and microleakage of flowable composite, compomer and glass ionomer cement.
    Xie H; Zhang F; Wu Y; Chen C; Liu W
    Aust Dent J; 2008 Dec; 53(4):325-31. PubMed ID: 19133948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Marginal microleakage of resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations: effect of using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives.
    Khoroushi M; Karvandi TM; Kamali B; Mazaheri H
    Indian J Dent Res; 2012; 23(3):378-83. PubMed ID: 23059577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. SEM evaluation of marginal sealing on composite restorations using different photoactivation and composite insertion methods.
    Lopes MB; Costa LA; Consani S; Gonini AJ; Sinhoreti MA
    Indian J Dent Res; 2009; 20(4):394-9. PubMed ID: 20139558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results.
    Mendonça JS; Neto RG; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Navarro MF; de Carvalho RM
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 May; 11(3):025-32. PubMed ID: 20461321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Micro-gap formations in Class V restorations using 4 types of composites and glass ionomer linings].
    Gordon M; Plasschaert AJ; Soelberg K; Bogdan MS
    Tidsskr Tandlaeger; 1986 Apr; 6(2):71-3. PubMed ID: 3462962
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Marginal and internal adaptation of bulk-filled Class I and Cuspal coverage direct resin composite restorations.
    Stavridakis MM; Kakaboura AI; Ardu S; Krejci I
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(5):515-23. PubMed ID: 17910230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.