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.
151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2223672)
1. [Coronal filling biomaterials. Criteria for selection]. Degrange M Real Clin; 1990 Jan; 1(1):9-26. PubMed ID: 2223672 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Conservative indirect restorations for posterior teeth. Cast versus bonded ceramic. Donovan TE; Chee WW Dent Clin North Am; 1993 Jul; 37(3):433-43. PubMed ID: 8348996 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Modern alternatives to amalgam: cementable restorations and inlays. Wirz J; Jaeger K Quintessence Int; 1999 Aug; 30(8):551-6. PubMed ID: 10635268 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Bonding of amalgam restorations: existing knowledge and future prospects. Setcos JC; Staninec M; Wilson NH Oper Dent; 2000; 25(2):121-9. PubMed ID: 11203798 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Marginal seal comparisons between resin-bonded Class II porcelain inlays, posterior composite restorations, and direct composite resin inlays. Shortall AC; Baylis RL; Baylis MA; Grundy JR Int J Prosthodont; 1989; 2(3):217-23. PubMed ID: 2699418 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Biocompatibility of a flowable composite bonded with a self-etching adhesive compared with a glass lonomer cement and a high copper amalgam. Shimada Y; Seki Y; Sasafuchi Y; Arakawa M; Burrow MF; Otsuki M; Tagami J Oper Dent; 2004; 29(1):23-8. PubMed ID: 14753328 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Dentin bond strength and marginal adaptation: direct composite resins vs ceramic inlays. Frankenberger R; Sindel J; Krämer N; Petschelt A Oper Dent; 1999; 24(3):147-55. PubMed ID: 10530276 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Quantitative microleakage evaluation around amalgam restorations with different treatments on cavity walls. de Morais PM; Rodrigues Júnior AL; Pimenta LA Oper Dent; 1999; 24(4):217-22. PubMed ID: 10823067 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Bonded amalgam restorations: using a glass-ionomer as an adhesive liner. Chen RS; Liu CC; Cheng MR; Lin CP Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):411-7. PubMed ID: 11203849 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Interfacial gaps following ceramic inlay cementation vs direct composites. Iida K; Inokoshi S; Kurosaki N Oper Dent; 2003; 28(4):445-52. PubMed ID: 12877431 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations: effect of thermal cycling. Helvatjoglou-Antoniades M; Theodoridou-Pahini S; Papadogiannis Y; Karezis A Oper Dent; 2000; 25(4):316-23. PubMed ID: 11203837 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]