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 *

123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21702675)

  • 1. The influence of a short training program on the clinical examination of dental restorations.
    McAndrew R; Chadwick B; Treasure ET
    Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):143-52. PubMed ID: 21702675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Student and faculty perceptions in the assessment of amalgam restorations.
    Owens BM
    J Tenn Dent Assoc; 2000; 80(2):28-31. PubMed ID: 11324025
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Re-treatment decisions for failed posterior fillings by Finnish general practitioners.
    Heinikainen M; Vehkalahti M; Murtomaa H
    Community Dent Health; 2002 Jun; 19(2):98-103. PubMed ID: 12146589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A 24-month evaluation of amalgam and resin-based composite restorations: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network.
    McCracken MS; Gordan VV; Litaker MS; Funkhouser E; Fellows JL; Shamp DG; Qvist V; Meral JS; Gilbert GH;
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2013 Jun; 144(6):583-93. PubMed ID: 23729455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effect of a training program on the reliability of examiners evaluating amalgam restorations.
    Robertello FJ; Pink FE
    Oper Dent; 1997; 22(2):57-65. PubMed ID: 9484162
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Re-intervention in glass ionomer restorations: what comes next?
    Burke FJ; Lucarotti PS
    J Dent; 2009 Jan; 37(1):39-43. PubMed ID: 18819740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.
    van Dijken JW
    J Dent; 2010 Jun; 38(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20193727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Trends in material choice for posterior restorations in an Israeli dental school: composite resin versus amalgam.
    Ben-Gal G; Weiss EI
    J Dent Educ; 2011 Dec; 75(12):1590-5. PubMed ID: 22184598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Impact of differences in amalgam restorations on examination standardization.
    Cobb DS
    J Dent Educ; 1997 Dec; 61(12):938-40. PubMed ID: 9457136
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Evaluation of occlusal marginal adaptation of Class II resin-composite restorations.
    Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE; Akerboom HB; Borgmeijer PJ; Gruythuysen RJ
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1993; 60(4-5):310-4. PubMed ID: 8258575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Double-blind randomized clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 6-month follow-up.
    Coelho-de-Souza FH; Klein-Júnior CA; Camargo JC; Beskow T; Balestrin MD; Demarco FF
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Mar; 11(2):001-8. PubMed ID: 20228981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material.
    Correa MB; Peres MA; Peres KG; Horta BL; Barros AD; Demarco FF
    J Dent; 2012 Sep; 40(9):703-10. PubMed ID: 22546263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.
    Kiremitci A; Alpaslan T; Gurgan S
    Oper Dent; 2009; 34(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 19192832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Black or white--Which choice for the molars? Part 2. Which does one choose for the restoration of posterior teeth: amalgam or composite?].
    De Moor R; Delmé K
    Rev Belge Med Dent (1984); 2008; 63(4):135-46. PubMed ID: 19227687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland.
    Mjör IA; Shen C; Eliasson ST; Richter S
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(2):117-23. PubMed ID: 11931133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Two-year clinical evaluation of repair versus replacement of composite restorations.
    Gordan VV; Shen C; Riley J; Mjör IA
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2006; 18(3):144-53; discussion 154. PubMed ID: 16831187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Attitudes and use of rubber dam by Irish general dental practitioners.
    Lynch CD; McConnell RJ
    Int Endod J; 2007 Jun; 40(6):427-32. PubMed ID: 17501755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The decision to repair or replace a defective restoration is affected by who placed the original restoration: findings from the National Dental PBRN.
    Gordan VV; Riley J; Geraldeli S; Williams OD; Spoto JC; Gilbert GH;
    J Dent; 2014 Dec; 42(12):1528-34. PubMed ID: 25223822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Dental students' ability to assess their performance in a preclinical restorative course: comparison of students' and faculty members' assessments.
    Tuncer D; Arhun N; Yamanel K; Çelik Ç; Dayangaç B
    J Dent Educ; 2015 Jun; 79(6):658-64. PubMed ID: 26034030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.