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.
69 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2597369)
1. Clinical evaluation of the handling properties of Herculite in posterior primary teeth. Bevan FL; Braham RL Am J Dent; 1989 Feb; 2(1):17-20. PubMed ID: 2597369 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Marginal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in Class II conservative preparations. Duncalf WV; Wilson NH Quintessence Int; 2001 May; 32(5):391-5. PubMed ID: 11444073 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Occlusal glass ionomer cermet, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations: a 2-year clinical study. Lidums A; Wilkie R; Smales R Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):185-8. PubMed ID: 7803005 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Time required for placement of composite versus amalgam restorations. Dilley DC; Vann WF; Oldenburg TR; Crisp RM ASDC J Dent Child; 1990; 57(3):177-83. PubMed ID: 2345211 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A comparison of the marginal and internal adaptation of amalgam and resin composite restorations in small to moderate-sized Class II preparations of conventional design. Duncalf WV; Wilson NH Quintessence Int; 2000 May; 31(5):347-52. PubMed ID: 11203946 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Class II glass ionomer cermet tunnel, resin sandwich and amalgam restorations over 2 years. Wilkie R; Lidums A; Smales R Am J Dent; 1993 Aug; 6(4):181-4. PubMed ID: 7803004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Clinical evaluation of a highly wear resistant composite. Dickinson GL; Gerbo LR; Leinfelder KF Am J Dent; 1993 Apr; 6(2):85-7. PubMed ID: 8397989 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of proximal contacts of posterior composite restorations with 4 placement techniques. El-Badrawy WA; Leung BW; El-Mowafy O; Rubo JH; Rubo MH J Can Dent Assoc; 2003 Mar; 69(3):162-7. PubMed ID: 12622881 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Preventive resin restorations vs. amalgam restorations: a three-year clinical study. Cloyd S; Gilpatrick RO; Moore D J Tenn Dent Assoc; 1997 Oct; 77(4):36-40. PubMed ID: 9520761 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Clinical and SEM study of Tetric resin composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results. Krejci I; Besek M; Lutz F Am J Dent; 1994 Feb; 7(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 9115675 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The influence of a packable resin composite, conventional resin composite and amalgam on molar cuspal stiffness. Molinaro JD; Diefenderfer KE; Strother JM Oper Dent; 2002; 27(5):516-24. PubMed ID: 12216572 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A new condensable composite for the restoration of posterior teeth. Leinfelder K; Prasad A Dent Today; 1998 Feb; 17(2):112-6. PubMed ID: 9560676 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Sarrett DC Dent Mater; 2005 Jan; 21(1):9-20. PubMed ID: 15680997 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Amalgam in the restoration of posterior teeth. Hermesch CB; Charlton DG Curr Opin Dent; 1992 Mar; 2():150-6. PubMed ID: 1520927 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The longevity of resin-based composite restorations in posterior teeth. Hondrum SO Gen Dent; 2000; 48(4):398-404. PubMed ID: 11199613 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Clinical behavior of posterior restorations with composite resins]. Skouta M; Kakaboura A Stomatologia (Athenai); 1991; 47(5-6):296-305. PubMed ID: 1949095 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]