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 *

186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2407659)

  • 21. [Despite all--do we have an appropriate substitute for amalgam?].
    Levin L; Samorodnitzky-Naveh G; Coval M; Geiger SB
    Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993); 2008 Apr; 25(2):23-6, 73. PubMed ID: 18780542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Cost of composite and glass ionomer class II molar restorations and theoretical analyses of cost per year of function at public dental services in Sweden.
    Sjögren P
    Swed Dent J; 2006; 30(3):99-107. PubMed ID: 17233326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Longevity of 2- and 3-surface restorations in posterior teeth of 25- to 30-year-olds attending Public Dental Service-A 13-year observation.
    Palotie U; Eronen AK; Vehkalahti K; Vehkalahti MM
    J Dent; 2017 Jul; 62():13-17. PubMed ID: 28529175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials.
    Demarco FF; Corrêa MB; Cenci MS; Moraes RR; Opdam NJ
    Dent Mater; 2012 Jan; 28(1):87-101. PubMed ID: 22192253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The safe and effective use of dental amalgam.
    Mjör IA
    Int Dent J; 1987 Sep; 37(3):147-51. PubMed ID: 3316042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Long-term cost of direct Class II molar restorations.
    Sjögren P; Halling A
    Swed Dent J; 2002; 26(3):107-14. PubMed ID: 12425224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Direct placement restorative materials for use in posterior teeth: the current options.
    Lyons K;
    N Z Dent J; 2003 Mar; 99(1):10-5. PubMed ID: 15330384
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Radiographic assessments of Class II resin composite inlays.
    Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE; Borgmeijer PJ; Akerboom HB; Gruythuysen RJ
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1994; 61(3):192-8. PubMed ID: 8089348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Recognition and prevention of failures in clinical dentistry. Aesthetic dental materials--posterior.
    Martin FE
    Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg; 1991 Oct; 11():178-88. PubMed ID: 1844029
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland.
    Mjör IA; Shen C; Eliasson ST; Richter S
    Oper Dent; 2002; 27(2):117-23. PubMed ID: 11931133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth.
    Manhart J; Neuerer P; Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A; Hickel R
    J Prosthet Dent; 2000 Sep; 84(3):289-96. PubMed ID: 11005901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Survival analysis of complete veneer crowns vs. multisurface restorations: a dental school patient population.
    Janus CE; Unger JW; Best AM
    J Dent Educ; 2006 Oct; 70(10):1098-104. PubMed ID: 17021290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 1): variation by type of restoration and re-intervention.
    Lucarotti PS; Holder RL; Burke FJ
    J Dent; 2005 Nov; 33(10):805-15. PubMed ID: 16221519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparison of glass-ionomer cements used to repair cast restorations.
    Carlson TJ; Naguib EA; Cochran MA; Lund MR
    Oper Dent; 1990; 15(5):162-6. PubMed ID: 2098724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Amalgam. XI. Glass-ionomer as a possible substitute of amalgam: longevity].
    Schuurs AH; van Amerongen JP
    Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd; 1994 Jan; 101(1):6-9. PubMed ID: 11830988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Survey of general dentists regarding posterior restorations, selection criteria, and associated clinical problems.
    Haj-Ali R; Walker MP; Williams K
    Gen Dent; 2005; 53(5):369-75; quiz 376, 367-8. PubMed ID: 16252541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Survey of amalgam and composite restorations in Korea.
    Mjör IA; Um CM
    Int Dent J; 1993 Aug; 43(4):311-6. PubMed ID: 8276514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Factors influencing dentists' choice of amalgam and tooth-colored restorative materials for Class II preparations in younger patients.
    Vidnes-Kopperud S; Tveit AB; Gaarden T; Sandvik L; Espelid I
    Acta Odontol Scand; 2009; 67(2):74-9. PubMed ID: 19085213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.