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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25738341)

  • 1. Surface roughness of restoration margin preparations: a comparative analysis of finishing techniques.
    Clarke I; Aquilia A; Bertassoni LE; Guazzato M; Klineberg I
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2015; 35(2):211-8. PubMed ID: 25738341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Surface roughness and wettability of enamel and dentine surfaces prepared with different dental burs.
    Al-Omari WM; Mitchell CA; Cunningham JL
    J Oral Rehabil; 2001 Jul; 28(7):645-50. PubMed ID: 11422697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Influence of dental rotary instruments on the roughness and wettability of human dentin surfaces.
    Ayad MF; Johnston WM; Rosenstiel SF
    J Prosthet Dent; 2009 Aug; 102(2):81-8. PubMed ID: 19643221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Finishing tooth-colored restorations in vitro: an index of surface alteration and finish-line destruction.
    Schmidlin PR; Göhring TN
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(1):80-6. PubMed ID: 14753337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Surface roughness of light-activated glass-ionomer cement restorative materials after finishing.
    St Germain HA; Meiers JC
    Oper Dent; 1996; 21(3):103-9. PubMed ID: 9002869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Surface geometry of three packable and one hybrid composite after finishing.
    Jung M; Voit S; Klimek J
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(1):53-9. PubMed ID: 12540119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Influence of tooth preparation burs on the roughness and bond strength of adhesives to human dentin surfaces.
    Ayad MF; Maghrabi AA; Saif RE; García-Godoy F
    Am J Dent; 2011 Jun; 24(3):176-82. PubMed ID: 21874939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Surface texture of four nanofilled and one hybrid composite after finishing.
    Jung M; Sehr K; Klimek J
    Oper Dent; 2007; 32(1):45-52. PubMed ID: 17288328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Surface properties of dental nanocomposites after finishing with rigid rotary instruments.
    Marchan SM; White D; Marchan QM; Dhuru V; Smith WA
    Oper Dent; 2013; 38(5):519-27. PubMed ID: 23327227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of enamel after various post-stripping polishing methods: an in vitro study.
    Gupta P; Gupta N; Patel N; Gupta R; Sandhu GS; Naik C
    Aust Orthod J; 2012 Nov; 28(2):240-4. PubMed ID: 23304974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Surface roughness of dentin after tooth preparation with different rotary instrumentation.
    Ayad MF; Rosenstiel SF; Hassan MM
    J Prosthet Dent; 1996 Feb; 75(2):122-8. PubMed ID: 8667268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A scanning electron microscopy comparison of enamel polishing methods after air-rotor stripping.
    Piacentini C; Sfondrini G
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1996 Jan; 109(1):57-63. PubMed ID: 8540483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Assessment of root surfaces of apicected teeth: a scanning electron microscopy evaluation.
    Ayranci F; Ayranci LB; Arslan H; Omezli MM; Topcu MC
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2015; 18(2):198-202. PubMed ID: 25665992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An evaluation of finishing instruments for an anterior and a posterior composite.
    Pratten DH; Johnson GH
    J Prosthet Dent; 1988 Aug; 60(2):154-8. PubMed ID: 2845069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of packable composites.
    Roeder LB; Tate WH; Powers JM
    Oper Dent; 2000; 25(6):534-43. PubMed ID: 11203867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Finishing and polishing of indirect composite and ceramic inlays in-vivo: occlusal surfaces.
    Jung M; Wehlen O; Klimek J
    Oper Dent; 2004; 29(2):131-41. PubMed ID: 15088723
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effect of ultrasonic instruments on the quality of preparation margins and bonding to dentin.
    Ellis R; Bennani V; Purton D; Chandler N; Lowe B
    J Esthet Restor Dent; 2012 Aug; 24(4):278-85. PubMed ID: 22863135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of surface roughness of cavity preparations on the microleakage of Class V resin composite restorations.
    Shook LW; Turner EW; Ross J; Scarbecz M
    Oper Dent; 2003; 28(6):779-85. PubMed ID: 14653294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effects of different surface finishing protocols for zirconia on surface roughness and bacterial biofilm formation.
    Lee DH; Mai HN; Thant PP; Hong SH; Kim J; Jeong SM; Lee KW
    J Adv Prosthodont; 2019 Feb; 11(1):41-47. PubMed ID: 30847048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Surface roughness and cutting efficiency of composite finishing instruments.
    Jung M
    Oper Dent; 1997; 22(3):98-104. PubMed ID: 9484147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.