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.
220 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22338513)
1. [Dental filling material biocompatibility--is Amalgam the worst in supply?]. Zimmerli B Rev Med Suisse; 2012 Jan; 8(325):195-6. PubMed ID: 22338513 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. An overview of treatment considerations for esthetic restorations: a review of the literature. Sadowsky SJ J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Dec; 96(6):433-42. PubMed ID: 17174661 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [New direct restorative materials]. Hickel R; Dasch W; Janda R; Tyas M; Anusavice K Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1999 Apr; 106(4):128-40. PubMed ID: 11930356 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Black or white--is amalgam 'out'? Part 1. Amalgam or composite: which of these 2 materials is the most deleterious?]. De Moor R; Delmé K Rev Belge Med Dent (1984); 2008; 63(4):128-34. PubMed ID: 19227686 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Amalgam can cause adverse effects in many people. No]. Roeloffs W Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 2011 Feb; 118(2):67. PubMed ID: 21438356 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The biocompatibility of non-amalgam dental filling materials. Schmalz G Eur J Oral Sci; 1998 Apr; 106(2 Pt 2):696-706. PubMed ID: 9584903 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Coronal microleakage of temporary restorations in previously restored teeth with amalgam and composite. Tulunoglu O; Uçtasli MB; Ozdemir S Oper Dent; 2005; 30(3):331-7. PubMed ID: 15986953 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Round robin test: wear of nine dental restorative materials in six different wear simulators - supplement to the round robin test of 2005. Heintze SD; Barkmeier WW; Latta MA; Rousson V Dent Mater; 2011 Feb; 27(2):e1-9. PubMed ID: 20888629 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. New direct restorative materials. FDI Commission Project. Hickel R; Dasch W; Janda R; Tyas M; Anusavice K Int Dent J; 1998 Feb; 48(1):3-16. PubMed ID: 9779078 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Biocompatibility of posterior restorative materials. Schuster GS; Lefebvre CA; Wataha JC; White SN J Calif Dent Assoc; 1996 Sep; 24(9):17-31. PubMed ID: 9120609 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Amalgam. VIII. Substitute for amalgam: the biocompatibility of composite restorations]. Schuurs AH; van Amerongen JP Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1993 Sep; 100(9):389-91. PubMed ID: 11822149 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. Soares PV; Santos-Filho PC; Martins LR; Soares CJ J Prosthet Dent; 2008 Jan; 99(1):30-7. PubMed ID: 18182183 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Compressive shear bond strength of core buildup materials. Görücü J; Saygili G; Ozgünaltay G Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2006 Apr; 26(2):183-9. PubMed ID: 16642907 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Wear of ten dental restorative materials in five wear simulators--results of a round robin test. Heintze SD; Zappini G; Rousson V Dent Mater; 2005 Apr; 21(4):304-17. PubMed ID: 15766577 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Use of an alternative pontic foundation technique for a fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial denture: a clinical report. Ayna E; Celenk S J Prosthet Dent; 2005 May; 93(5):412-5. PubMed ID: 15867748 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]