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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25571820)

  • 21. Glass-ionomer cement restorations and secondary caries: a preliminary report.
    Mjör IA
    Quintessence Int; 1996 Mar; 27(3):171-4. PubMed ID: 9063229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children's Amalgam Trial.
    Soncini JA; Maserejian NN; Trachtenberg F; Tavares M; Hayes C
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2007 Jun; 138(6):763-72. PubMed ID: 17545265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Influence of patient factors on age of restorations at failure and reasons for their placement and replacement.
    Burke FJ; Wilson NH; Cheung SW; Mjör IA
    J Dent; 2001 Jul; 29(5):317-24. PubMed ID: 11472803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Repair of defective composite restorations. A questionnaire study among dentists in the Public Dental Service in Norway.
    Staxrud F; Tveit AB; Rukke HV; Kopperud SE
    J Dent; 2016 Sep; 52():50-4. PubMed ID: 27421988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Alternative treatments to replacement of defective amalgam restorations: results of a seven-year clinical study.
    Gordan VV; Riley JL; Blaser PK; Mondragon E; Garvan CW; Mjör IA
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2011 Jul; 142(7):842-9. PubMed ID: 21719808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Selection of restorative materials, reasons for replacement, and longevity of restorations in Florida.
    Mjör IA; Moorhead JE
    J Am Coll Dent; 1998; 65(3):27-33. PubMed ID: 9805435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A prospective 8-year follow-up of posterior resin composite restorations in permanent teeth of children and adolescents in Public Dental Health Service: reasons for replacement.
    Pallesen U; van Dijken JW; Halken J; Hallonsten AL; Höigaard R
    Clin Oral Investig; 2014 Apr; 18(3):819-27. PubMed ID: 23873326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Marginal failures of amalgam and composite restorations.
    Mjör IA; Qvist V
    J Dent; 1997 Jan; 25(1):25-30. PubMed ID: 9080736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The Post-Amalgam Era: Norwegian Dentists' Experiences with Composite Resins and Repair of Defective Amalgam Restorations.
    Kopperud SE; Staxrud F; Espelid I; Tveit AB
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2016 Apr; 13(4):441. PubMed ID: 27110804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations in student clinics in Manchester and Athens.
    Deligeorgi V; Wilson NH; Fouzas D; Kouklaki E; Burke FJ; Mjör IA
    Eur J Dent Educ; 2000 Nov; 4(4):153-9. PubMed ID: 11168480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Repair or replacement of amalgam restorations: decisions at a USA and a UK dental school.
    Setcos JC; Khosravi R; Wilson NH; Shen C; Yang M; Mjör IA
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(4):392-7. PubMed ID: 15279477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Defective dental restorations: to repair or not to repair? Part 1: direct composite restorations.
    Blum IR; Jagger DC; Wilson NH
    Dent Update; 2011 Mar; 38(2):78-80, 82-4. PubMed ID: 21500616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Cost-effectiveness of repairing versus replacing composite or amalgam restorations.
    Kanzow P; Wiegand A; Schwendicke F
    J Dent; 2016 Nov; 54():41-47. PubMed ID: 27575986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. An audit on the placement and replacement of restorations in a general dental practice.
    Frost PM
    Prim Dent Care; 2002 Jan; 9(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 11901789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The decision to repair or replace a defective restoration is affected by who placed the original restoration: findings from the National Dental PBRN.
    Gordan VV; Riley J; Geraldeli S; Williams OD; Spoto JC; Gilbert GH;
    J Dent; 2014 Dec; 42(12):1528-34. PubMed ID: 25223822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Defective direct composite restorations--replace or repair? A survey of teaching in Scandinavian dental schools.
    Blum IR; Mjör IA; Schriever A; Heidemann D; Wilson NH
    Swed Dent J; 2003; 27(3):99-104. PubMed ID: 14608966
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Reasons for the placement and replacement of restorations in vocational training practices.
    Burke FJ; Cheung SW; Mjör IA; Wilson NH
    Prim Dent Care; 1999 Jan; 6(1):17-20. PubMed ID: 10752459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.