257 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21716986)
21. Effect of post-retained composite restoration of MOD preparations on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth.
Sorrentino R; Salameh Z; Zarone F; Tay FR; Ferrari M
J Adhes Dent; 2007 Feb; 9(1):49-56. PubMed ID: 17432401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Fracture resistance of root filled premolar teeth restored with direct composite resin with or without cusp coverage.
Xie KX; Wang XY; Gao XJ; Yuan CY; Li JX; Chu CH
Int Endod J; 2012 Jun; 45(6):524-9. PubMed ID: 22242600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Influence of cavity design and restorative material on the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars.
Cubas GB; Camacho GB; Pereira-Cenci T; Nonaka T; Barbin EL
Gen Dent; 2010; 58(2):e84-8. PubMed ID: 20236909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Assessment of laminate technique using glass ionomer and resin composite for restoration of root filled teeth.
Taha NA; Palamara JE; Messer HH
J Dent; 2012 Aug; 40(8):617-23. PubMed ID: 22521705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various esthetic restorative materials to dentin: an in vitro study.
Manuja N; Pandit IK; Srivastava N; Gugnani N; Nagpal R
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent; 2011; 29(1):7-13. PubMed ID: 21521911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with posterior filling materials of varying reported volumetric shrinkage values.
Fleming GJ; Hall DP; Shortall AC; Burke FJ
J Dent; 2005 Feb; 33(2):139-46. PubMed ID: 15683895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Microleakage of different resin composite types.
Yazici AR; Celik C; Ozgünaltay G
Quintessence Int; 2004; 35(10):790-4. PubMed ID: 15553287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Class II composite restorations: importance of cervical enamel in vitro.
Laegreid T; Gjerdet NR; Vult von Steyern P; Johansson AK
Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):187-95. PubMed ID: 21777100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results.
Bottenberg P; Alaerts M; Keulemans F
J Dent; 2007 Feb; 35(2):163-71. PubMed ID: 16963171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. The effect of different restoration techniques on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated molars.
Cobankara FK; Unlu N; Cetin AR; Ozkan HB
Oper Dent; 2008; 33(5):526-33. PubMed ID: 18833859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-and-rinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems.
Kasraei S; Azarsina M; Majidi S
Oper Dent; 2011; 36(2):213-21. PubMed ID: 21702678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Two-year clinical evaluation of ormocer and nanofill composite with and without a flowable liner.
Efes BG; Dörter C; Gömeç Y; Koray F
J Adhes Dent; 2006 Apr; 8(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 16708724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The effect of composite fiber insertion along with low-shrinking composite resin on cuspal deflection of root-filled maxillary premolars.
Oskoee SS; Oskoee PA; Navimipour EJ; Ajami AA; Zonuz GA; Bahari M; Pournaghiazar F
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2012 Sep; 13(5):595-601. PubMed ID: 23250159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The effect of cuspal coverage on the fracture resistance of teeth restored with indirect composite resin restorations.
Burke FJ; Wilson NH; Watts DC
Quintessence Int; 1993 Dec; 24(12):875-80. PubMed ID: 20830883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. The effect of flowable materials on the microleakage of Class II composite restorations that extend apical to the cemento-enamel junction.
Sadeghi M; Lynch CD
Oper Dent; 2009; 34(3):306-11. PubMed ID: 19544820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. In vitro fracture resistance of molar teeth restored with a short fibre-reinforced composite material.
Fráter M; Forster A; Keresztúri M; Braunitzer G; Nagy K
J Dent; 2014 Sep; 42(9):1143-50. PubMed ID: 24859462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
