1386 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22521705)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Cuspal deflection, strain and microleakage of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with direct resin composites.
Taha NA; Palamara JE; Messer HH
J Dent; 2009 Sep; 37(9):724-30. PubMed ID: 19581032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth restored with glass fibre bundles.
Rodrigues FB; Paranhos MP; Spohr AM; Oshima HM; Carlini B; Burnett LH
Int Endod J; 2010 May; 43(5):356-62. PubMed ID: 20518927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Cuspal deflection in premolar teeth restored using current composite resins with and without resin-modified glass ionomer liner.
Karaman E; Ozgunaltay G
Oper Dent; 2013; 38(3):282-9. PubMed ID: 23092141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of premolar cuspal deflection in bulk or in incremental composite restoration methods.
Kim ME; Park SH
Oper Dent; 2011; 36(3):326-34. PubMed ID: 21827222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The effect of glass ionomer cement or composite resin bases on restoration of cuspal stiffness of endodontically treated premolars in vitro.
Hofmann N; Just N; Haller B; Hugo B; Klaiber B
Clin Oral Investig; 1998 Jun; 2(2):77-83. PubMed ID: 15490780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Micromechanical Intervention in Sandwich Restoration.
Khan TN; Ali Abidi SY; Nawaz Khan KB; Ahmed S; Rehman Qazi FU; Saeed N
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2015 Nov; 25(11):781-4. PubMed ID: 26577960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Coronal microleakage in conservatively restored endodontic access preparations.
Kleitches AJ; Lemon RR; Jeansonne BG
J Tenn Dent Assoc; 1995 Jan; 75(1):31-4. PubMed ID: 9520778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Marginal microleakage of resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations: effect of using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives.
Khoroushi M; Karvandi TM; Kamali B; Mazaheri H
Indian J Dent Res; 2012; 23(3):378-83. PubMed ID: 23059577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations: comparison of microleakage and bond strength results.
Neme AL; Evans DB; Maxson BB
Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):512-9. PubMed ID: 11203864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Thickness of CAD-CAM composite resin overlays influences fatigue resistance of endodontically treated premolars.
Magne P; Knezevic A
Dent Mater; 2009 Oct; 25(10):1264-8. PubMed ID: 19539358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Push-out strength of translucent fibre posts cemented using a dual-curing technique or a light-curing self-adhering material.
Giachetti L; Scaminaci Russo D; Baldini M; Bertini F; Steier L; Ferrari M
Int Endod J; 2012 Mar; 45(3):249-56. PubMed ID: 22007679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
