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 *

119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23579138)

  • 1. Summary of: a comparative study of bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations in general dental practice.
    Chadwick RG
    Br Dent J; 2013 Apr; 214(7):352-3. PubMed ID: 23579138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparative study of bonded and non-bonded amalgam restorations in general dental practice.
    Worskett P
    Br Dent J; 2013 Apr; 214(7):E19. PubMed ID: 23579163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Longevity of conventional and bonded (sealed) amalgam restorations in a private general dental practice.
    Bonsor SJ; Chadwick RG
    Br Dent J; 2009 Jan; 206(2):E3; discussion 88-9. PubMed ID: 19148188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations.
    Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Roeters JM; Loomans BA
    Dent Mater; 2007 Jan; 23(1):2-8. PubMed ID: 16417916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive agents with dye under vacuum: an in vitro study.
    Parolia A; Kundabala M; Gupta V; Verma M; Batra C; Shenoy R; Srikant N
    Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(2):252-5. PubMed ID: 21891895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Six-year clinical evaluation of bonded and pin-retained complex amalgam restorations.
    Summitt JB; Burgess JO; Berry TG; Robbins JW; Osborne JW; Haveman CW
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(3):261-8. PubMed ID: 15195725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. No available evidence to assess the effectiveness of bonded amalgams.
    Murad M
    Evid Based Dent; 2009; 10(4):106. PubMed ID: 20023615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations.
    Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Loomans BA; Huysmans MC
    J Dent Res; 2010 Oct; 89(10):1063-7. PubMed ID: 20660797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Longevity of repaired restorations: a practice based study.
    Opdam NJ; Bronkhorst EM; Loomans BA; Huysmans MC
    J Dent; 2012 Oct; 40(10):829-35. PubMed ID: 22771415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Review of bonded amalgam restorations, and assessment in a general practice over five years.
    Smales RJ; Wetherell JD
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(5):374-81. PubMed ID: 11203845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effectiveness of ART and traditional amalgam approach in restoring single-surface cavities in posterior teeth of permanent dentitions in school children after 6.3 years.
    Frencken JE; van't Hof MA; Taifour D; Al-Zaher I
    Community Dent Oral Epidemiol; 2007 Jun; 35(3):207-14. PubMed ID: 17518967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Decisions of practitioners regarding placement of amalgam and composite restorations in general practice settings.
    Pink FE; Minden NJ; Simmonds S
    Oper Dent; 1994; 19(4):127-32. PubMed ID: 9028231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The survival of Class V restorations in general dental practice: part 3, five-year survival.
    Stewardson D; Creanor S; Thornley P; Bigg T; Bromage C; Browne A; Cottam D; Dalby D; Gilmour J; Horton J; Roberts E; Westoby L; Burke T
    Br Dent J; 2012 May; 212(9):E14. PubMed ID: 22576479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Repair of amalgam restorations with composite resin and bonded amalgam: a microleakage study.
    Popoff DA; Gonçalves FS; Magalhães CS; Moreira AN; Ferreira RC; Mjör IA
    Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(6):799-803. PubMed ID: 22484874
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evidence summary: which dental liners under amalgam restorations are more effective in reducing postoperative sensitivity?
    Nasser M
    Br Dent J; 2011 Jun; 210(11):533-7. PubMed ID: 21660022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Clinical evaluation of a compomer and an amalgam primary teeth class II restorations: a 2-year comparative study.
    Kavvadia K; Kakaboura A; Vanderas AP; Papagiannoulis L
    Pediatr Dent; 2004; 26(3):245-50. PubMed ID: 15185806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Effect of restoration size on fracture resistance of bonded amalgam restorations.
    Lindemuth JS; Hagge MS; Broome JS
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(3):177-81. PubMed ID: 11203813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations.
    Hickel R; Manhart J; García-Godoy F
    Am J Dent; 2000 Nov; 13(Spec No):41D-54D. PubMed ID: 11763918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Clinical research on bonded amalgam restorations. Part 1: SEM study of in vivo bonded amalgam restorations.
    Staninec M; Marshall GW; Lowe A; Ruzickova T
    Gen Dent; 1997; 45(4):356-60, 362. PubMed ID: 9515442
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.