259 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21716986)
1. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with class II MOD cavities restored with Ormocer, Nanofilled, and Nanoceramic composite restorative systems.
Taha DG; Abdel-Samad AA; Mahmoud SH
Quintessence Int; 2011; 42(7):579-87. PubMed ID: 21716986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth, with variable marginal ridge thicknesses, restored with composite resin and composite resin reinforced with Ribbond: an in vitro study.
Kalburge V; Yakub SS; Kalburge J; Hiremath H; Chandurkar A
Indian J Dent Res; 2013; 24(2):193-8. PubMed ID: 23965445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Fracture resistance of teeth with Class II bonded amalgam and new tooth-colored restorations.
Görücü J; Ozgünaltay G
Oper Dent; 2003; 28(5):501-7. PubMed ID: 14531594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Fracture resistance of premolar teeth restored with silorane-based or dimethacrylate-based composite resins.
Akbarian G; Ameri H; Chasteen JE; Ghavamnasiri M
J Esthet Restor Dent; 2014; 26(3):200-7. PubMed ID: 24103086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of novel restorative materials and retention slots on fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth.
Yasa B; Arslan H; Yasa E; Akcay M; Hatirli H
Acta Odontol Scand; 2016; 74(2):96-102. PubMed ID: 25982519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Marginal adaptation of ormocer-, silorane-, and methacrylate-based composite restorative systems bonded to dentin cavities after water storage.
Mahmoud SH; Al-Wakeel Eel S
Quintessence Int; 2011; 42(10):e131-9. PubMed ID: 22026005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Fracture strength and fracture patterns of root filled teeth restored with direct resin restorations.
Taha NA; Palamara JE; Messer HH
J Dent; 2011 Aug; 39(8):527-35. PubMed ID: 21620926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of resin cements and aging on cuspal deflection and fracture resistance of teeth restored with composite resin inlays.
Salaverry A; Borges GA; Mota EG; Burnett Júnior LH; Spohr AM
J Adhes Dent; 2013 Dec; 15(6):561-8. PubMed ID: 23653900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effect of different types of flowable restorative resins on microleakage of Class V cavities.
Yazici AR; Ozgünaltay G; Dayangaç B
Oper Dent; 2003; 28(6):773-8. PubMed ID: 14653293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of two types of composite fibers on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars: an in vitro study.
Oskoee PA; Chaharom ME; Kimyai S; Oskoee JS; Varasteh S
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2011 Jan; 12(1):30-4. PubMed ID: 22186687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The effect of mechanical loading on the cusp defection of premolars restored with direct and indirect techniques.
Zamboni SC; Nogueira L; Bottino MA; Sobrinho LC; Valandro LF
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2014 Jan; 15(1):75-81. PubMed ID: 24939269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of fracture resistance of teeth restored with ceramic inlay and resin composite: an in vitro study.
Desai PD; Das UK
Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(6):877. PubMed ID: 22484893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Monomer elution from nanohybrid and ormocer-based composites cured with different light sources.
Manojlovic D; Radisic M; Vasiljevic T; Zivkovic S; Lausevic M; Miletic V
Dent Mater; 2011 Apr; 27(4):371-8. PubMed ID: 21168907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with combined composite-amalgam restorations.
Geiger S; Paikin L; Gorfil C; Gordon M
Quintessence Int; 2008 Feb; 39(2):e58-62. PubMed ID: 18560642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. The effect of the post length and cusp coverage on the cycling and static load of endodontically treated maxillary premolars.
Scotti N; Scansetti M; Rota R; Pera F; Pasqualini D; Berutti E
Clin Oral Investig; 2011 Dec; 15(6):923-9. PubMed ID: 20830497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of bulk-fill base material on fracture strength of root-filled teeth restored with laminate resin composite restorations.
Taha NA; Maghaireh GA; Ghannam AS; Palamara JE
J Dent; 2017 Aug; 63():60-64. PubMed ID: 28571830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer, nanohybrid and nanofill composite restorative systems in posterior teeth.
Mahmoud SH; El-Embaby AE; AbdAllah AM; Hamama HH
J Adhes Dent; 2008 Aug; 10(4):315-22. PubMed ID: 18792703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effect of fiber post and cusp coverage on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars directly restored with composite resin.
Mohammadi N; Kahnamoii MA; Yeganeh PK; Navimipour EJ
J Endod; 2009 Oct; 35(10):1428-32. PubMed ID: 19801245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. In vitro study comparing fracture strength recovery of teeth restored with three esthetic bonding materials using different techniques.
Rajput A; Ataide I; Lambor R; Monteiro J; Tar M; Wadhawan N
Eur J Esthet Dent; 2010; 5(4):398-411. PubMed ID: 21069110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
