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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

206 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2300793)

  • 21. Quantitative in vivo evaluation of four restorative concepts for mixed Class V restorations.
    Krejci I; Lutz F; Loher CE
    Quintessence Int; 1991 Jun; 22(6):455-65. PubMed ID: 1882038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Clinical evaluation of the bond between composite resin and etched glass ionomer cement.
    Tyas MJ; Toohey A; Clark J
    Aust Dent J; 1989 Feb; 34(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 2523216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Marginal leakage of Class II glass-ionomer-silver restorations, with and without posterior composite coverage: an in vitro study.
    Guelmann M; Fuks AB; Holan G; Grajower R
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1989; 56(4):277-82. PubMed ID: 2503551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Vitremer restorative cement for children: three clinicians' observations in three pediatric dental practices.
    Croll TP; Helpin ML; Donly KJ
    ASDC J Dent Child; 2000; 67(6):391-8, 374. PubMed ID: 11204061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of postoperative bleaching on marginal leakage of resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer restorations at different delayed periods of exposure to carbamide peroxide.
    Moosavi H; Ghavamnasiri M; Manari V
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2009 Nov; 10(6):E009-16. PubMed ID: 20020076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Enamel remineralization on teeth adjacent to Class II glass ionomer restorations.
    Segura A; Donly KJ; Stratmann RG
    Am J Dent; 1997 Oct; 10(5):247-50. PubMed ID: 9522700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Microleakage of Class II box-type composite restorations.
    Opdam NJ; Roeters JJ; Burgersdijk RC
    Am J Dent; 1998 Aug; 11(4):160-4. PubMed ID: 10388369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results.
    Casagrande L; Dalpian DM; Ardenghi TM; Zanatta FB; Balbinot CE; García-Godoy F; De Araujo FB
    Am J Dent; 2013 Dec; 26(6):351-5. PubMed ID: 24640441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Marginal leakage of combinations of glass-ionomer and composite resin restorations.
    Sarne S; Mante MO; Mante FK
    J Clin Dent; 1996; 7(1):13-6. PubMed ID: 9238879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Resin modified glass ionomer cements. In vitro microleakage in direct class V and class II sandwich restorations.
    Sjödin L; Uusitalo M; van Dijken J
    Swed Dent J; 1996; 20(3):77-86. PubMed ID: 8957133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations.
    Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Roeters JM; Loomans BA
    J Adhes Dent; 2007 Oct; 9(5):469-75. PubMed ID: 18297828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Influence of the restorative technique and new adhesives on the dentin marginal seal and adaptation of resin composite Class II restorations: an in vitro evaluation.
    Dietschi D; De Siebenthal G; Neveu-Rosenstand L; Holz J
    Quintessence Int; 1995 Oct; 26(10):717-27. PubMed ID: 8935115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Durability of extensive Class II open-sandwich restorations with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement after 6 years.
    Andersson-Wenckert IE; van Dijken JW; Kieri C
    Am J Dent; 2004 Feb; 17(1):43-50. PubMed ID: 15241909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Effects of etching time on surface morphology and adhesion of a posterior resin to glass-ionomer cement.
    Joynt RB; Williams D; Davis EL; Wieczkowski G
    J Prosthet Dent; 1989 Mar; 61(3):310-4. PubMed ID: 2646444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions.
    Franco EB; Benetti AR; Ishikiriama SK; Santiago SL; Lauris JR; Jorge MF; Navarro MF
    Oper Dent; 2006; 31(4):403-8. PubMed ID: 16924979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer.
    Payne JH
    J Clin Pediatr Dent; 1999; 23(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 10204453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A retrospective look at esthetic resin composite and glass-ionomer Class III restorations: a 2-year clinical evaluation.
    de Araujo MA; Araújo RM; Marsilio AL
    Quintessence Int; 1998 Feb; 29(2):87-93. PubMed ID: 9643241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 16 years. Part III: effect of luting agent and tooth or tooth-substitute core structure.
    Malament KA; Socransky SS
    J Prosthet Dent; 2001 Nov; 86(5):511-9. PubMed ID: 11725279
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Longevity of posterior restorations in primary teeth: results from a paediatric dental clinic.
    Pinto Gdos S; Oliveira LJ; Romano AR; Schardosim LR; Bonow ML; Pacce M; Correa MB; Demarco FF; Torriani DD
    J Dent; 2014 Oct; 42(10):1248-54. PubMed ID: 25150105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Marginal morphology of Class V composite restorations.
    Prati C; Chersoni S; Cretti L; Mongiorgi R
    Am J Dent; 1997 Oct; 10(5):231-6. PubMed ID: 9522697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.