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 *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2609945)

  • 1. Comparison of three techniques for measuring wear of dental restorations.
    Roberts MJ; Söderholm KJ
    Acta Odontol Scand; 1989 Dec; 47(6):367-74. PubMed ID: 2609945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Longitudinal micromorphological 15-year results of posterior composite restorations using three-dimensional scanning electron microscopy.
    Dietz W; Montag R; Kraft U; Walther M; Sigusch BW; Gaengler P
    J Dent; 2014 Aug; 42(8):959-69. PubMed ID: 24814136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses.
    Bratos M; Bergin JM; Rubenstein JE; Sorensen JA
    J Prosthet Dent; 2018 Aug; 120(2):232-241. PubMed ID: 29559220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Automatic gap detection at restoration margins with an optical sensor in vitro.
    Heintze SD; Forjanic M; Jakob G
    J Adhes Dent; 2005; 7(2):95-105. PubMed ID: 16052758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quantitative margin analysis in the scanning electron microscope.
    Roulet JF; Reich T; Blunck U; Noack M
    Scanning Microsc; 1989 Mar; 3(1):147-58; discussion 158-9. PubMed ID: 2740861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite.
    Palaniappan S; Bharadwaj D; Mattar DL; Peumans M; Van Meerbeek B; Lambrechts P
    Dent Mater; 2009 Nov; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Wear evaluation of porcelain opposing gold, composite resin, and enamel.
    Kadokawa A; Suzuki S; Tanaka T
    J Prosthet Dent; 2006 Oct; 96(4):258-65. PubMed ID: 17052470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reliability of different techniques to assess marginal defects of Class II restorations in retrieved primary molars: a visual-tactile, SEM, dye penetration and polarized light microscopy study.
    Fuks AB; Araujo FB; Donly KJ; Cervantes M
    Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993); 2002 Oct; 19(4):6-16, 67. PubMed ID: 12510251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Wear measurements in clinical studies of composite resin restorations in the posterior region: a review.
    Kreulen CM; van Amerongen WE
    ASDC J Dent Child; 1991; 58(2):109-23. PubMed ID: 2050870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. In vivo wear. Part I: The Michigan computer-graphic measuring system.
    McDowell GC; Bloem TJ; Lang BR; Asgar K
    J Prosthet Dent; 1988 Jul; 60(1):112-20. PubMed ID: 3165457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Efficacy of two methods for restorative materials' removal in primary teeth.
    Bittar DG; Murakami C; Hesse D; Imparato JC; Mendes FM
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2011 Sep; 12(5):372-8. PubMed ID: 22269199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of two methods for measuring generalized wear of dental materials.
    Kawai K; Tsuchitani Y
    J Osaka Univ Dent Sch; 1994 Dec; 34():1-8. PubMed ID: 8935088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Removal of amalgam overhangs. A profilometric and scanning electron microscopic evaluation.
    Vale JD; Caffesse RG
    J Periodontol; 1979 May; 50(5):245-9. PubMed ID: 379297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Scanning electron microscope study of the junction between restorations and gingival cavosurface margins.
    Saltzberg DS; Ceravolo FJ; Holstein F; Groom G; Gottsegen R
    J Prosthet Dent; 1976 Nov; 36(5):517-22. PubMed ID: 1068287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An accurate and simple method for the measurement of dental composite wear.
    Winkler MM; Lautenschlager EP; Boghosian A; Greener EH
    J Oral Rehabil; 1996 Jul; 23(7):486-93. PubMed ID: 8814565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Influence of CAD/CAM tool and material on tool wear and roughness of dental prostheses after milling.
    Lebon N; Tapie L; Vennat E; Mawussi B
    J Prosthet Dent; 2015 Aug; 114(2):236-47. PubMed ID: 25957240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Assessment of precision and accuracy of digital surface photogrammetry with the DSP 400 system].
    Krimmel M; Kluba S; Dietz K; Reinert S
    Biomed Tech (Berl); 2005 Mar; 50(3):45-53. PubMed ID: 15832575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Composite restoration wear analysis: conventional methods vs. three-dimensional laser digitizer.
    Perry R; Kugel G; Kunzelmann KH; Flessa HP; Estafan D
    J Am Dent Assoc; 2000 Oct; 131(10):1472-7. PubMed ID: 11042988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical wear rate of direct and indirect posterior composite resin restorations.
    Cetin AR; Unlu N
    Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent; 2012 Jun; 32(3):e87-94. PubMed ID: 22408783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [A new method for 3-dimensional wear measurement].
    Krejci I; Reich T; Bucher W; Lutz F
    Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed; 1994; 104(2):160-9. PubMed ID: 8134815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.